Chris, look at the passage from Isaiah you just posted!!! LOOK at it!
Isaiah 65:1-5 (ESV)
I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me;
I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me.
I said, "Here am I, here am I,"
to a nation that was not called by my name.
[2] I spread out my hands all the day
to a rebellious people,
who walk in a way that is not good,
following their own devices;
[3] a people who provoke me
to my face continually,
sacrificing in gardens
and making offerings on bricks;
[4] who sit in tombs,
and spend the night in secret places;
who eat pig's flesh,
and broth of tainted meat is in their vessels;
[5] who say, "Keep to yourself,
do not come near me, for I am too holy for you."
These are a smoke in my nostrils,
a fire that burns all the day.
What does it mean that He was ready to be sought and ready to be found? Only that he wants people to seek! But they refused. Their own choice! God obviously WANTED them, but He respected the free will He Himself had given them.
1 John 4:19 (ESV)
We love because he first loved us.
From you:
To be predestined because we have acted toward God in love is violence upon the meaning of predestined.
Only the kind of predestination you are talking about. It does not do violence to what the Bible is talking about.
However, I am wondering if calling me a liar is part of your Christian character? I would not have stated that we cannot love if God had not first enabled us if I did not believe that. If you do not understand how I am fitting it together, ask me instead of accusing me of lying because I don't agree with you.
Regarding my work with Ligonier Ministries, I started interpreting for them at the Western Conference on the Majesty of God (I think that was the title) in 1991. I had not heard of them before but was really pleased with the series of presentations I coordinated interpreters for that year. The next year, therefore, I was more than happy to be involved again. During that time I started typing down the Tabletalk articles from our regular English to ASL-compatible English for the deaf in this area and those to whom they would send the 'translations.' I began to see a few things which bothered me a little, but figured it was me.
The third year's conference was when I was thrown for a loop by the presentation of Reformed theology. Then I started realizing what it was that had been bothering me about some of the Tabletalk material. That is when I took two years off and started studying the Bible extraordinarily thoroughly to find out what was really true. I read a number of books as well as going through
The Gospel According to Jesus line by line with a deaf friend and typing that down into simple English, with the knowledge and help of Dr. MacArthur himself.
Plain and simply, I reject Calvinism as being in opposition to the clear message of the Bible, which you have consistently ignored in the texts I have shown you. That is your business, but I refuse to ignore Bible passages I am uncomfortable with. Like C.S. Lewis, I have found that the ones that make me uncomfortable are the ones I have the most to learn from in the long run.
=============
Going down the list of responses now, to Chet.
Thank you for your support here. It is a little hard when I am consistently categorized as what I plainly try to say I am not, told I believe what I do not, and then called a liar on top of it.
If THAT is the fruit of Calvinism, I am really glad God guided me into a study of it early on so I would not get trapped by those tactics now.
==============
To Larry - N
NE is arguing that God did not initiate the relationship and do everything necessary! The argument is that God has also given, as clearly indicated in the Bible, the freedom to accept or reject His offer!
A love relationship is a mutual thing. If we WANT to be the 'other side' of it, He enables us, for we truly cannot love on our own. But we have to want it; we have to respond to Him with a "yes." It's that simple.
And just as I wrote earlier, of course all that the Father gives to Christ will come. The Father gives those to Christ who have been seeking and who responded with that 'yes' when God showed them the truth about Himself.
================
PreachtheWord - I do believe God's Word. All of it.
You asked, if the stars contain the Gospel, and all men can see the stars, why do we send missionaries?
I thought I answered that in the article. The stars contain the Promise. The basic story. The fact that it 'came true,' that it was worked out in a specific time and place by God and that God Himself has words of love and wisdom and invitation to us through Jesus Christ is the Gospel message. The basic message, then, is NOT "guess what God did?", but "God did it!" If you read the missionary stories from the last hundreds of years, you will find consistent astonishment that the people approached were already prepared by God - there was always something left in the culture, in the legends, in the ancient histories, which pointed to the promise. Before Christ, the stars were well known. That is precisely the reason the Magoi traveled to Jerusalem seeking "Him who is born King of the Jews." They knew because of the stars and because of the timing.
It was not actually until after Christ that the message in the stars began to be twisted into an occult nightmare. So the missionaries had to be sent out from the beginning to spread the truth of the Promise as well as its fulfillment.
It's like Romans 1 says: creation gives enough testimony about God that no man has an excuse, but it does not give the full testimony. That came through Jesus, and that is the job of missionaries still today - to share the full testimony.
And yes, it is very true that I searched everything out and examined the passages, but never by themselves - always I allowed Bible to interpret Bible and kept material in context. Otherwise any doctrine can be claimed to be true, and that would make a lie out of the Bible as a whole.
You quoted the following:
Jude 1:4
For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Did you notice the verse that comes after this?
…I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe…In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion…
I also have a different translation of the text you quoted. In the NIV it reads
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign Lord.
Then you told me not to get 'hung up' on the word "all", as that is used "in a representative sense" in the Bible. Yes, sometimes. Always? Do you believe the Flood only inundated a representative "all" the earth, or is Genesis clearly written? Do you believe that when the Lord summoned "Come to me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden…" that He was not referring to all, but only a representative few? And again, when sin entered the world because of Adam, do you believe all men were then born sinners, or just a representative few?
I understood what Paul was saying when He said he was all things to all men. When I read that in context, he explains himself very clearly, contrary to the idea that somehow this would have to mean becoming a drunkard, etc., if 'all' were really 'all'. Here is what he said, and this is why I stress over and over again to TAKE THINGS IN CONTEXT:
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law,) so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
It means a little differently that what you implied it would have to mean if Paul really meant 'all', doesn't it? Paul explains himself and also qualifies 'all' with 'by all possible means.'
The angels, when they said the good news was for all men, did not qualify the 'all.'
The Bible really is very clear…
It's just that it has to be read in context, and to pull a verse out as you have done here and then exegete it apart from context is, in a very large understatement, not right.
You then asked me to respond to the following as being part of an understanding of John 3:16:
a) God loves every individual the exact same (see Psalm 5:5 and others that deny this).
Here is the full context, which is even stronger than just verse 5:
"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
with you the wicked cannot dwell.
The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
You hate all who do wrong.
You destroy those who tell lies;
Bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors."
Tell me, first, do you see anything there which indicates that the Lord hated them before they did these things? I don't. And if - just by some quirk - these men actually had a choice regarding their behavior, wouldn't these verses fit just as well regarding this hate being God's response to those choices?
And if we let Bible interpret Bible, specifically the New Testament interpret the Old, we can definitely pair the above with Romans 1:18-19 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."
That suppression of truth is a conscious denial of it. It is a choice men make.
b) God loves only some people and enjoys being malicious toward others (see Ezekiel 33 and others that deny this).
You know I deny this anyway! I know He loves everyone as a creation of His own. I know that!
Here is verse 11 from this chapter of Ezekiel, which I have put in context with verses before and after it. Verse 11 will be italicized -
"Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?"' Say to them,
'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'
"Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness. …And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right - if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die."
Please understand that I know that a man is not saved by his own deeds. That is not the issue here. But I think Ezekiel 33 clearly says that God does love each man and respect the decision of each man and allows each man to turn from his wicked ways if he so chooses. Why else would God literally beg, through Ezekiel, for Israel to TURN, and asks them 'Why will you die?' He is clearly asking them to make a choice for Him, to follow and obey.
Please understand also that I KNOW that neither Israel nor any man or group of people can do more than want to turn and make a token effort. But that is enough. God gives the power to those who desire the power to turn from their wicked ways. What Calvinism is saying, though, is that God also gives them the desire to turn. If so, that would be in contradiction of the above, would it not? He is there begging them to turn and asking them "Why will you die?"
c) God love all of His creation and does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked but also has a special love for His own (see the Bible that supports this).
What on earth makes you think I am arguing against this???? He loves the world, does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but also has a special love for those who respond to HIS love (and yes, He always knew who these would be).
You then added another post saying:
One more thing, love is the seeking of the good in another. That is why you spank your children. That is why each spouse forfeits their life for the other. That is why God sought us out and not vice versa. Don't get caught up in Dobson's and Smalley's psychobabble.
Taking it backwards, I have long since given up on Dobson and Smalley drives me nuts, OK?
But, more importantly, love is NOT 'seeking the good in another.' In fact, that is directly against Calvinism as that theology claims there is no good in man in his unredeemed state. Or maybe you are then saying that no one could ever love an unredeemed person? I have a real problem with that.
I would instead amend your definition of love to "Love is seeking the good for another."
God was not seeking the good in us when He went to the cross. He was accomplishing the good FOR us. When I spanked, or otherwise disciplined, my children, it was not a matter of seeking good in them, but of controlling the rebelliousness! In controlling it, and teaching them self-control, I was working for their good, because I was committed to them and cared for them. That commitment and care was a decision I had made. Love always is.
As far as the marriage relationship goes, Barry and I know that God gave us to each other. Our lives together make one that is dedicated to the Lord God in his work and in mine. So while we submit to each other, and he truly has 51% human voting stock in this 'company,' our lives are NOT forfeit to each other, but with each other, to Christ.
