Calvinist claim they are elected.

If this is so then why would He repent the making of Man. Even if it meant He only felt sorry that He had. I don't understand why God would do such a thing. He is perfect. Doesn't that perfection mean, that He could have planned all those circumstances differently so that they would have turned out perfectly?

Perfection means no mistakes. If the making of man was so terrible a thing so as to cause God to repent. Then I can only assume that He did something in the creation of men that wasn't quite right.

These are only questions not my personal belief. I don't believe that everything right down to the blinking of my eye was plan for when and how.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.

I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary, and knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.

Key word, "assume." There are other alternatives. This verse is just a true expression of the way God felt with respect to the situation as it exists at theat moment. If a situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change. It grieves God every time every person sins. However, God delights when that person repents and turns to Him does He not? He says He will judge sin, yet when persons repent, He relents. This does not mean God changes His purposes or that He is imperfect in any way or that anything He has done is imperfect.

We see the total sweep of the story and Scripture. : God's previous action led to events that, in the short term caused Him sorrow, but that nonethless in the long term would ultimately achieve His good purposes." (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1994, p. 165)

By saying that you think God did something imperfect in creating man, then you are blaming God for man's sin. How can you say this and then say Calvinists are the ones that make God the author of sin? This very statement contradicts your own statements about us, because, in saying this, you are saying God is to blame because He did something imperfect in creating man.

 

Could have but did not. Does that make God imperfect?

Where do you get that God changed His mind in Gen 6?

Mr Webster defines perfection as "An inherent or essential attribute of supreme or infinite excellence; or one perfect in its kind; as the perfections of God. The infinite power, holiness,justice, benevolence and wisdom of God are denominated his perfections."

God's perfection is immutable. It wasn't the making of man that so grieved the heart of God. It is man's rejection of Divine love that breaks the heart of Abba Father.

Oh no, between this and that total depravity thing, I'm starting to sound like a Calvinist! Somebody help me!

 

There is no test for election.

 

I can assure you that not all those who claim to be the elect actually are. In fact a number of Calvinists I met are not even sure if they are saved.

Mt. 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

 

iluvlight,


As a God of Justice, we should get what we deserve - in this case destruction
As a God of Mercy, we do not get what we deserve - in this case we are not destroyed.
As a God of Grace, we get what we do not deserve - Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Sounds like an earthly dad to me. Reminds me of getting caught smoking behind the barn. Dad's first words were, "Why I ought to blister your behind (that would be justice), but I ain't going to (that's mercy); aw come here." And when he took me in his arms and hugged me that was grace. He didn't change his mind and rue the day I was born. He mourned at the choices I made but he didn't stop loving me. It grieved him that I would ignore the testimony of my grandpa I'd never meet who died with a pack of un-Lucky Strikes in his pocket.

My daddy had the right to blister my bottom. He was my dad and had committed his every waking day attending to the welfare of my siblings and me. He loved all of us. If he took the switch to me it was because my disobedience was as much an affront to a daddy's love than any misfortune that would come my way.


God is something much greater than any earthly father. He is just, merciful and gracious at the same moment. I wonder how many times each second God says, "I ought to, but I won't for now. Have you met My Son?"

 

Hey GB,

Send them out our way and we'll make good Arminians out of them. At least then they will know they are saved; they just won't be sure if they'll stay that way.

 

Good Arminians! Are there any?HaHa!

johnp.

 

johnp,

"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.'" Luke 18:19

I guess there aren't any good Calvinist, either.

 

God taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed, that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve. George Whitefield December 24, 1740


johnp, I forgot the ha, ha! on the end of my last reply to you. Lest you be offended, brother.

 

never said there was pad!

johnp.

 

Me get offended, never. If I were to become offended I would only be sinning against the Lord and that is like butting your head against a wall. I'd rather have sugar in my tea than take offence.

johnp.

 

ILUVLIGHT.

And that is exactly right. That's why Paul answers the point, that is just the conclusion you should come to so Paul answers your question; RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

That's the answer, no answer, a warning, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"

He does not depend on your opinion He has told you. RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

He is the law. What He does is law. My God is Sovereign and as such is not bound by any law, His will is law. He does not ask us to sit in judgement of Him.

I think that is a fair statement. That predestination to Hell is not scriptural but I would not deny that God chose to create the creation in full knowledge and with a determined will He created some for Hell. The purpose of which is to bring Him glory by revealing His wrath and His justice. Attributes He wanted to show us. May be. But the conclusion is good.
Then when you question Him about His morality He gets all uppity and says, "What's that to you?" Or "Are you talking back to me?"
He is scary when He gets like that.

The scriptures should drive you to this conclusion. It was Paul's conclusion but He did not have the answer either. His conclusion, "RO 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25"
That's Paul's conclusion but he does not know if it is true. I would bet my last £ that the answer, "RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?, was to Paul's question.

He says He is Just. He says He does the above. He will straighten it out if He so wills, I have put my faith in Him and question Him no longer over His business.

johnp.

 

Send them out our way and we'll make good Arminians out of them. At least then they will know they are saved; they just won't be sure if they'll stay that way. </font>[/QUOTE]I have never met a true evangelical who was 100 percent Arminian or Calvinist. Just listen to their prayers sometime.

 

You peeked, didn't you. There must every few 100% Calvinist in Baptist circles or they'd be falling all over themselves baptizing babies! But, that was another thread.

 

I wonder how a pure Calvinist explains, "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?"

 

Here's one way.

I'm not sure why you think this passage is a problem for Calvinists.