A 'Loving' God Would Never...

Monergist said: "Rather than taking scripture at face value, this objection presupposes that we may take such phrases as "God is Love" and interject our own muddled understanding of 'love,' hence defining it by our own terms rather than scripture, and then attempt to set parameters on God by our own distorted definition of 'Love.' A Calvinist understands and accepts that 'God is Love' from scripture, but doesn't attempt to use an unbiblical definition of 'Love' to try and determine what a Loving God should do and not do."

I don't believe that's true. I don't come up with MY own definition of love. I use 1 Corinthians 13.

 

"This Holy God justly hates sin (and the wicked)."

Ok...then why does He love you and me? We were wicked. He just "changed His mind" about us? He hates the wicked and hated us, but changed His mind and now loves us?

 

Yeah, I know. That's why he doesn't like to post the passage within its context, which clearly shows that 'Esau I hated' refers to God's sovereign choice of Jacob instead of Esau before either was born. </font>[/QUOTE]"Born" could refer to two nations beginning. Could be metaphorical language. So "all" doesn't always mean all; but "born", "Esau" and "Edom" always mean "born", "Esau"the PERSON and never "Edom" the NATION?

 

I guess you had to actually read the quote in Malachi - eh?

What a concept.

 

Ummm. I am thninking the answer is "none".

Why?

 

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Since men love darkness rather than light why and how do they come to the knowledge of the truth? </font>[/QUOTE]Through the drawing (all men) of the Holy Spirit. </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't all men accept the call then? Are some better than others? Do some make better decisions than others of their own "free will"?

 

No logic problem there even if it does accurately represent someone's view.

People can hear the Holy Spirit when God enables them through regeneration. He predestined by the good pleasure of His will to do this.

And about judgment and sinners being cast into hell.

However, Christ most certainly does mention it. You can interpret it differently but there is nothing wrong with the "logic" used by calvinists to interpret the relevant words of Christ.

Which would make the analogy completely meaningless.

In that time, the shepherds moved their flocks about to graze. They sometimes became intermingled with other flocks. It was the shepherds voice that caused his sheep to come to him.... an almost perfect illustration of what calvinists believe. The sheep respond because they hear the voice of their shepherd.

BTW, why would these sheep respond to the shepherd? Were they better sheep? Smarter? Luckier? In a better place to hear?

What was it about these particular sheep that caused them to follow the good shepherd while all the others ignored him?

If they didn't already belong to him and have the recognition of his voice planted within them then they wouldn't have followed him. This makes Christ's analogy completely contrary to the non-calvinist concept of free will.

 

Did some angels make better decisions than other angels "of their own free will"??

Why was that? Surely it could not BE because of free will could it??!!

Surely it had to be because GOD MADE THEM better than the others -- right??

Or could it be that God MADE free will?!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why was that? Surely it could not BE because of free will could it??!!

Nope, the angels where elect according to His soveriegn purpose also.

 

Did some angels make better decisions than other angels "of their own free will"??

Why was that? Surely it could not BE because of free will could it??!! </font>[/QUOTE]Sure it could. God allowed some to fall and ordained that many other individuals would not... due to His election of them.

This is an inane answer.

If you asked me, "Do you prefer beef or chicken?" and I responded "Because I have been given a choice", you would immediately recognize the answer as ridiculous.

Once again (this really isn't hard), I am not asking whether we have a free will or a choice. I am asking WHY some choose salvation while others continue down the road to hell.

I have assumed your premise for this question... you can stop arguing for it.

Assuming that people have a completely independent, free-will, sovereign decision over whether they accept salvation or not then what causes that decision if it is not goodness within that person? If it is goodness in one and evil in another that determines their choice then salvation is not by grace but by God recognizing the merit of the sovereign choice of another.

 

Elect to what -- "Remain sinless"??

Elect to "choose AGAINST THEIR SINLESS nature"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

bob ryan, your PM box is full here, so i sent you a PM on spurgeon.us.

 

Elect to what -- "Remain sinless"??</font>[/QUOTE] Yes.

No.

And in both cases making a "real" choice.

 

The little PM "you have a message" light does not show up here??

Whuzzup with that??

 

Time to expose that "free will" thingie again.

Angels have and had free will. Lucifer and the angels who followed him did so out of their free will. They no longer have a free will but a will that is enslaved to sin. ie. Satan cannot repent now and come back to God, nor can his angels - They don't even want to because their nature is corrupt.

Man was created with a free will. Adam and Eve made a free will choice to sin and thus they and their progeny became enslaved to sin. They cannot change their nature without external help.

God through Jesus Christ Saves. And those who are saved are freed from their corrupt nature and given a new nature in Christ. Paul said it in Rom 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." A person when he is saved has a free will for the first time in his life.

 

Dear Brother Bob,
I cannot remember what this question was about. I am sorry.

If I were to guess, it is related to the emotional value some seem to tie to the resurrected glorified body of the believer. For example, when the age is consummated and all the saints are praising God and His Lamb, if I am not there, which of the saints will not have the full likeness of Christ and thus be searching heaven for one who loved darkness rather than light?

Who imagines that any of the saints will look over into the lake of fire? Who wants to deny scripture when it teaches us that God himself will wipe away all our tears?

Will there be sadness and sorrow for those who loved their sins and hated righteousness?

Bro. Dallas

 

In Rev 20 we have the first resurrection - then the 1000 years then the second resurrection THEN the Lake of Fire and Brimstone "event".

Then we come to Rev 21

So "yes" every tear IS "wiped away" after the first earth and the lake of fire with it - are passed away - and the NEW Earth is created.

But Tears are NOT wiped away IN Rev 20 DURING the LAke of Fire and brimstone - torment for the wicked.

So if we care to observe the sequence given - it all works.

The saints DO have the "mind of Christ" who DOES weep over the suffering of the lost.

IF the "likeness of Christ" means "no concern for the lost" then we need to delete those scriptures showing God in sorrow over the lost and Christ weeping over them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I hate to step too close to the cliff for fear of being struck by lightning - but I agree with most of that.

But there are some "missing details" in the case of the fall of man.

#1. In Gen 3 God puts supernatural DISCORD between mankind and his own inclination to do evil. (I will but discord between the seed of the woman and seed of the serpent).

#2. The DRAWING of God in John 12:32 ENABLES that choice to accept Christ that TD disables EVEN by Calvinist accounts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

To delete scripture is not a problem for some people:

Some have already done so:

Re 14:10 (KJV) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Re 14:11 (KJV) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

"And he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:..."

I respect your understanding, at least you do stand on the milennial reign of Christ, that is good.

Still, I don't see, even prior to the event of death and hell and all whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of Life being cast into the lake of fire, that any saint will mourn for those who have hated God and His righteousness but who have loved iniquity.

Bro. Dallas

 

#1. It is easy to see that parents love children -- even today.

#2. It is easy to see that saints are given the "mind of Christ" 1Cor 2:16.

1 Cor 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

#3. It is easy to see that "God is Love" and that saints are commanded to Love "even more" than we do today (1Cor 13).

#4. It is easy to see that God "weeps over the lost". (See the next post) AND That God says "HE does not CHANGE"(Mal 4:1-3) AND that God says HE is not partial (Rom 2:11)

What is not "easy to see" is that Johnathan Edwards idea that --
A. Parents CEASE to care about children when they experience the Rev 14:10 "event"
B. God CHANGES so that He no longer weeps over the fate of the lost. And NO LONGER has the Ezek 18 attitude of "NO pleasure in the death of ANYONE".
C. Parents CEASE to have the "mind of Christ" when they reach that Rev 14:10 point.

In fact as James (poster on this board) states that he thinks many 4-pt and 5-pt Calvinists here even today think that God DOES love ALL - (not a marketeering kind of ALL-types but really ALL people).

But in any case the "Calvinist Future Scenario" DOES address the point you are making - which is that this "Concern" for the lost in that Rev 14:10 scenario is not allowed in pure Calvinism of the 4-pt and 5pt variety.

In Christ,

Bob