A strict 5-point Calvinist God is not worthy of worship...

[Hardsheller]

God can always be accused of allowing the innocent to suffer and the hungry to starve because He has the means to relieve all their suffering and all their hunger. This is a common argument among non-believers. Why should I worship a God who allows all this human suffering?
It's just not consistent with a loving God.

Unless there is an ultimate purpose behind the creation of the World and the creation of man that supercedes the human experience from conception to death then there is no consistency in God.

You cannot form your theology based on the human experience and the human predicament alone.

God has a purpose and a plan that precedes and supercedes all human life. It is within that purpose and plan that the mysteries of the innocent suffering, election and predestination, heaven and hell are all contained.

No finite mind can fully comprehend the divine purpose and plan of God. If it were possible then this discussion would be moot because there would be nothing to speculate and opine about.

The reality from our vantage point is that some are saved and most are not. And many of those who are not never even get to hear like we heard which is certainly unfair from a human point of view.

The comment of a well respected theologian around our home (my wife) goes as follows. "The only thing any of us ever deserves is Hell. The fact that any of us are ever saved is an act of Amazing Grace."

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Discuss, people!

Basic argument is this:-

A G/g*od who deliberately creates some humans willing that they be damned and subject to eternal punishment is a cruel and wicked tyrannical deity who is not worthy of any worship but rather is to be feared. He cannot in any way we understand as being created in image of said deity be said to be good and therefore we should blaspheme rather than worship such a being.

That's the premise; I'm keeping quiet about whether I subscribe in any shape of form to it, but would like your thoughts.

Let the debate begin!

Yours in Christ

Matt

*delete as applicable

Where do you find that God created some men to be condemned ?

I have not read any of the other posts, so I may be repetitive, if so just let me know.

The elect children of God are conceived and born into the same position as all others. That is totally depraved. God calls those elect from among the mass of creation which is dead in trespasses and sins.

Christ said my sheep hear my voice and they follow me.

There is no double predestination involved. Those who do not hear his voice do not follow him, who are we then whether we be of the elect or whether our hearts deceive us, that we should question the everlasting love, mercy and righteousness of God by comparison to our human emotion?

No, a God/god so weak that he can not operate among His creation according to the purpose of HIS will and for the glory of the praise of HIS grace, but is only able to operate where the creature wills HIS presence [ie thus accepting Christ as redeemer] is made unworthy of the glory of the praise of HIS grace and the praise of the wisdom of the will of some of HIS creatures who have validated HIS throne of Grace supercedes HIS mercy seat.

Did HE say to Moses that over and above the mercy seat HIS people would commune with HIM or that HE would commune with HIS people?

Bro. Dallas

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not quite. The unjust and, as I see it, consequently false god, stems from the combination of two assumptions, both of which CAN be adduced from Scripture if one so wishes:

1. God creates/ allows to be created (if you want to split hairs)men in a totally depraved state.

But, therein lies the problem, Matt.

We cannot approach the Scriptures adducing anything, or splitting hairs, or using man's finite deductive reasoning.

The Scriptures itself gives us the guidelines.

A precept here, a precept there, a line here, a line there, compare spiritual with spiritual.

Now, I will again ask you. Where are Scriptures from which we can draw assumptions the way you presented them:

That God creates/allows to be created, men in a totally depraved state ?

I will reaffirm my position here : God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, a truly free moral agent. Without sin in their spirits, without sin in their flesh, able to choose to obey or disobey God. They were duly and fairly warned of death as the result of disobedience.

They disobeyed. As a result, sin and death came in (Romans 5:12). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). All humankind is in bondage to the Law, and to sin.

All men deserve death and hell as a result of sin which they do that stems from a nature which is naturally in rebellion against God. At the last day, the wicked will be judged by their works , not by their fallen nature.

That is what Scripture says, there is no need to 'split hairs'.

AND

2. He deliberately chooses to give only some of them the opportunity to get out of that state.

There lies the root of the injustice, and hence the inconsistency with, nay negation of God as revealed in Scripture; one of the above is consistent with a just God, both cannot be

Yours in Christ

Matt

[/QUOTE][/QB]

On the contrary, He gives no one the opportunity to get out of that state.

Salvation is not an opportunity , it is not an offer, a take-it-or-leave-it, speak-now-or-forever-be-damned kind of thing.

It is something that God decided to give to some, not all, freely (to them, but it was not free as far as God was concerned).

Salvation is Jesus Christ. He is the One who paid the ransom for those whom His Father gave Him in eternity past, before they even knew Him.

What you want to happen is for God to see things your way.

But, the Bible clearly teaches that there are those in this world whom God foreknew, elected, and called sheep of His pasture long before He even created the world.

These souls He will bring with Him into a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness dwells, and where Jesus Christ is on the throne.

The rest will be kept out, and be in a state of eternal torment.

 

[Ray Berrian]

All sinners are created in the image of God even after the Fall of Adam. Read it for yourself. [James 3:9] And I'll bet you never or seldom find a Calvinist pastor preaching for one half hour from John 1:9. Study it until you get it. Human sinners are not Totally Depraved though they are capable of committing any sin. Yes, we were depraved and even have Original Sin after salvation; but we have the Spirit of God also to guide us.

Many sinners know the plan of salvation but still turn away from the Lord's calling by the Spirit. [John 5:40; Acts 7:51; Isaiah 63:10; Malachi 1:9 and Jeremiah 19:15]

God's last few words as He closes the canon of Scripture were 'And the Spirit and the bride say come . . . . and whosoever will . . . ' [Revelation 22:17] Here is a most clear indicater of human free will.

In these few verses we have blown out of the water Total Depravity, Uncondictional Election, Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace.

And as a side bar the Calvinistic idea of the Doctrines of Grace as noted above are a disgrace in the mind and eyes of Almighty God.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Scripture - and Jesus Himself as God Incarnate -reveal a God of love, mercy, compassion and justice as well as a God of holiness.

And scripture -- and Jesus Himself as God Incarnate -- reveals Himself to have chosen some and not others. He says, right to their faces, that some people do not believe because they are not His sheep, not because they don't accept His "offer" of salvation (salvation is not "offered", it is granted). He says, right to their faces, that some people do not believe because their father is the devil, not because they "choose" not to believe. And Jesus doesn't show an ounce of pity for these people when He addresses them, because they are not His. They don't belong to Him. Furthermore, Jesus says that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him, which clearly delineates between those who the Father gives Him and those who the Father does NOT give Him. Why the Father only gives SOME and not ALL is something we may not grasp, but since God does everything according to His good pleasure, we who trust God know that He has His reasons and they must be good reasons.

This is injustice in your eyes because you have your own postmodernist idea of what constitutes justice. So you refuse to see what justice really means in the eyes of God - you instead impose your own definition of justice on God, as if God must follow your idea of justice in order to be the kind of God you would want to worship.

So scratch all those parts out of the Bible - John 6 in particular - and go on believing in a god who doesn't exist, but fits your idea of what a god should be.

 

[Frogman]

Hello Brother Ray,
The Bible don't say nothing about him who thirsts being whosoever, does it?

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Even Jesus said Come unto me ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.

Who is he/she that is laboring and is heavy laden?

Is it the worker of iniquity? If it is, then he/she chooses God from within his/her iniquitious self-will.

I am getting ready to go to work, so I will answer the other passages you use to blow the doctrines of Grace out of the water when I return, unless someone has already answered them by that time.

be careful about blowing the doctrines of Grace out of scripture though, there is no whosoever will except those that are hungered, those that thirst, those that are laboring and heavy laden, in short them that believe are saved by the preaching of the cross.

all those adjectives describe those who are laboring, who are thirsting, who are hungering for the truth of God, seeking as Anna and Simeon to see the salvation of God revealed, that is the whosoever.

May God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[Matt Black]

It's not postmodernist at all - it is a human standard of justice and fairness that is a by-product of us being made in His image. If that is our concept of justice, how much greater a standard can we expect from God!

Oh, and PB, thanks for the apology a few posts back

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
God's last few words as He closes the canon of Scripture were 'And the Spirit and the bride say come . . . . and whosoever will . . . ' [Revelation 22:17] Here is a most clear indicater of human free will.

I think you're a bit mixed up about what Rev 22:17 is saying. Did you not notice that the Spirit and the bride say "come"? This is the Spirit and the bride (the elect) longing for the return of Jesus. It is expressed again at the end of the chapter (and book): 20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

As for the latter part of verse 17, there's no free will there. It plainly says

And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

Him who thirsts. Whoever desires.

The question is, who thirsts and who desires, and why do they thirst and desire? Do they thirst and desire because it was given to them to do so, or because they chose to thirst and desire of their own free will? The verse says neither, but I think the likelihood of the latter is rather slim.

Let's see -- I don't FEEL any thirst right now, but perhaps I can decide of my own free will to be thirsty. I'll try it, and if it works, I'll go get a diet pepsi. Otherwise I'll wait until the thirst comes upon me.

 

[Ray Berrian]

And scripture -- and Jesus Himself as God Incarnate -- reveals Himself
to have chosen some and not others. He says, right to their faces, that
some people do not believe because they are not His sheep, not
because they don't accept His "offer" of salvation (salvation is not
"offered", it is granted). He says, right to their faces, that some people
do not believe because their father is the devil, not because they
"choose" not to believe. And Jesus doesn't show an ounce of pity for
these people when He addresses them, because they are not His.
They don't belong to Him. Furthermore, Jesus says that all that the
Father gives Him will come to Him, which clearly delineates between
those who the Father gives Him and those who the Father does NOT
give Him. Why the Father only gives SOME and not ALL is something
we may not grasp, but since God does everything according to His
good pleasure, we who trust God know that He has His reasons and
they must be good reasons.

This is injustice in your eyes because you have your own
postmodernist idea of what constitutes justice. So you refuse to see
what justice really means in the eyes of God - you instead impose your
own definition of justice on God, as if God must follow your idea of
justice in order to be the kind of God you would want to worship.

So scratch all those parts out of the Bible - John 6 in particular - and go
on believing in a god who doesn't exist, but fits your idea of what a
god should be.

Jesus and His Gospel of salvation to eternal life is offered and not granted. {John 3:16 & Acts 2:21; Acts 16:31} (no strings attached)

Your "post-modernist" concept was a nice try but Biblical Christianity and Biblical exegesis goes back to the Apostolic band. You have merely swallowed Augustine and Calvin's agenda of their day both having been Roman Catholic. Place spiritual eye salve in your Christian eyes, and be healed.

In John chapter six the apostle is merely telling us that no sinner can come to the Father without the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

In eternity past to eternity future Jesus Divine Justice still does and always will mean fairness toward all of His created human beings. [II Peter 3:9]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Matt Black,

It's not postmodernist at all - it is a human standard of justice and
fairness that is a by-product of us being made in His image. If that is
our concept of justice, how much greater a standard can we expect
from God!

Great point! If we have a sense of justice and equality toward other human beings; God has an even greater and deeper concept than we who are saved.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I think you're a bit mixed up about what Rev 22:17 is saying. Did you
not notice that the Spirit and the bride say "come"? This is the Spirit
and the bride (the elect) longing for the return of Jesus.

According to your philosophy the Bride of Christ is talking to themselves.

On the contrary, the Spirit of God and the church is calling to sinners to come to Christ. It is our ministry to scatter the seed of the Gospel so the Holy Spirit can call sinners to Himself.
The ones who hear should come. The ones who thirst should come. Whoever want to come should come, ' . . . and let him take of the water of life freely.

In case you forgot, you have already drunk from the water of eternal life, and I am sure that you know that it was free grace.

All sinners thirst after God but they try to satisfy their hunger and thrist by material things rather than grace through Jesus Christ our Lord. It is our purpose for being Christians to show them the truth, so the Spirit of God can get a foothold on their lives.

 

[Paul33]

Matt has raised the critical question concerning the nature of God and the nature of man. If one begins with the decree to save some and reprobate others, one cannot escape the implication that God has created some to spend eternity in hell simply because he has decreed it to be so.

The argument of supralapsarianism goes like this:

1. The decree to save some and reprobate others.
2. The decree to create both the elect and the reprobate.
3. The decree to permit the fall of both.
4. The decree to provide salvation only for the elect.

According to this argument, God determined to save some and reprobate others and then went about making it happen. I don't see how God could not be the author of sin according to this plan. Supralapsarianism is contrary to the Scriptures that teach that God is loving, gracious, impartial, and good.

Some Calvinists hold to this position, but it was not the position of Calvin. This was his disciple's position - Theodore Beza.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not postmodernist at all - it is a human standard of justice and fairness that is a by-product of us being made in His image. If that is our concept of justice, how much greater a standard can we expect from God!

Our concept? Speak for yourself. That's my whole point - it's YOUR concept, and the concept of those who just happen to agree with you. It's not MY concept, and it's not a BIBLICAL concept.

The Bible does not paint God as an equal opportunity employer. From day one, He chose people for this and that purpose without ever consulting us or offering the same opportunity to all. It's His creation, and He can do with it whatever He will, and He lets us know that this is the arrangement over and over again. The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

That offends your personal sense of justice, so you rewrite the Bible to impose your postmodernist concept of justice onto God. In order for God to be a just God in your mind, you have to make Him offer salvation to all people. This seems right to you and other Arminians, because it places the blame on people, not God, if they don't get saved.

What you fail to realize is that by changing the rules of justice in order to be pleased with your vision of God, you've contradicted the Bible, and created a humanist soteriology that gives CREDIT to people for being saved. If people, not God, are to blame for rejecting the Gospel, then people, not God, are to be credited for accepting it. The unspoken Arminian catch phrase is "to man be the glory".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Don Sailer:
I don't see how God could not be the author of sin according to this plan.

Sin is simply disagreement with God, or put more simply, sin == NOT God. Therefore it is logically impossible for God to be the author of sin, because God cannot contradict Himself. Yet it is certainly possible and perfectly consistent for God to create situations where sin will inevitably result.

All God has to do to is to create a self-directed thinking being without enough of His Spirit or guidance so that the self-directed being will eventually put himself first. In short, that being will eventually do something "NOT God" or not in agreement with God.

In the above scenario, God didn't create a sinful being, and God didn't MAKE the person sin, therefore God is not the author of the sin commited by His being. But God created a situation where sin was the inevitable outcome, so God is responsible for the fact that He created a being that would eventually sin.

I don't see how anyone can come away from Genesis without seeing that this is exactly what happened. Even if you overlook the obvious fact that God allowed satan into the garden (as if God is an idiot who didn't know what satan would do), there's no way to get around the fact that fallen mankind was part of God's plan before He even created Adam and Eve. Most people acknowledge that "let US make man in OUR image" shows that Jesus is eternal (among other scriptures). But what's the point of God manifesting Himself in the trinity if He had nobody to redeem? What would be the point of Jesus at all if God hadn't planned sin into creation? You can play with words and say God anticipated sin, but if God knew Adam would sin before He created Adam, then it amounts to the same thing as planning.

 

[Paul33]

All of us are lost in sin. We cannot save ourselves and we cannot earn salvation. Neither do we merit salvation.

But John 3:16 is absolutely clear. Jesus died for everyone.

Man receives blame for resisting the drawing of Christ (If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself). Man cannot receive glory for accepting Christ because man is not able to accept Christ. Those who do not resist the drawing of Christ find themselves to be "in Christ." Christ does the drawing! God forknew those who were in Christ and chose them before the foundation of the world. If you are saved, God gets the glory.

It is not true that if man takes the blame he also deserves the credit.

 

[Paul33]

The question isn't what God foreknew, it's what did he cause. God knows everything. He knows what is going to happen if he creates a universe in which man is given free will. Supralapsarianism makes God the cause of evil. Infralapsarianism removes that problem by making the first decree the creation of human beings. Remember, these are decrees in the mind of God before he creates anything.

Infralapsarianism goes like this:

1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to elect some and reprobate others.
4. The decree to provide salvation only for the elect.

In this argument, God does not cause the fall, he only permits it, therefore he is not the author of sin.

In the mind of God, God decided to create human beings with free will. God then decides to permit the fall. The result is that man is responsible for his own sin and fallen condition.

However, infralapsariansim contradicts Scripture when it makes the third decree the decree to elect some and reprobate others. By placing this decree before the decree to provide salvation sufficient for all, infralapsarianism violates the biblical teaching that God desires none to perish. If God desires that none perish, how can he elect some and reprobate others, providing salvation only for the elect?

 

[Ray Berrian]

npetreley,

Sin is simply disagreement with God, or put more simply, sin == NOT
God. Therefore it is logically impossible for God to be the author of sin,
because God cannot contradict Himself. Yet it is certainly possible and
perfectly consistent for God to create situations where sin will
inevitably result.

Sin is most certainly more than ' . . . simply disagreement with God.' Sin is exceedingly sinful and is unfathomable in its evil character since it is committed against the infinite and holy God. I do not have a perfect explanation as to how to explain how awful sin is in relation to the holiness of the Lord God. The bottom line is that He created Heaven and Hell to deal with the situation.

Your erring statement about God creating situations where sin will at the right time result, means that a man or woman must transgress because the Lord made them commit a sorted sin against His Divine Being.

God tells us that with every temptation He will make a way of escape, thereby absolving Himself from being the Author of sinning. When speculating as to God's not drawing all sinners to the Cross is to make Jesus allied with the evil one in a conspiracy where though God is more powerful than Satan, Jesus leaves non-elect sinners in their lost condition, without any culpability/responsibility.

The Biblical axis as to who is drawn to Jesus Christ for redemption is found in John 12:32.

'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.'

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by npretreley
But what's the point of God manifesting Himself in the trinity if He had nobody to redeem?

Yes, I'm back after leaving the Calvinist-non-Calvinist fold for awhile. The other threads I've been posting on are somewhat boring right now.
Don't know how long I'll stick around, though.

The statement quoted above makes it sound like the Trinity is part of the plan to redeem man rather than the fact that the Trinity is who God is -- it's His eternal nature. Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Marcia, you said:

The statement quoted above makes it sound like the Trinity is part of the plan to redeem man rather than the fact that the Trinity is who God is -- it's His eternal nature. Not sure what you mean by this.

God made a covenant with Himself to redeem a people unto Himself from the fallen race of Adam.

The Father planned and elected, the Eternal Word, Jesus Christ, became Man and redeemed, offering Himself a ransom, and the Holy Spirit does the regenerating or quickening of the elect.

I think that is why Nick mentioned the Trinity.

Hope that helped.

 

[Marcia]

Thanks, pinoybaptisy. I know that the Trinitarian God is part of man's redemption but the statement makes it sound like God is trinitarian in order to redeem man rather than the fact that God is a trinitarian God just because that is Who He is, regardless of man or redemption.