Deuteronomy for dummies

[whatever]

Originally posted by bapmom:
whatever,

why do we try to use our finite minds to "figure out" an INfinite God?

I'm just trying to use Scripture to understand what God has revealed about Himself, and about us. I think God has revealed that He is too merciful to leave my destiny up to me.

And in actuality, the Bible says that we love our own selves.

I'm not sure what passage you are referring to, but I doubt that it says that our love for ourselves is better than God's love for us.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Aye, there's the rub, and this is why I am becoming dissatisfied with Christianity. If a person has the chance to save a group of people he claims he loves from death and does not, we would consider him to be cruelly and unnaturally negligent. God does the same thing and we're supposed to say, "Whew, lucky for you!" to those who get saved? It's like the lottery, but the tickets are determining the fate of your eternal soul--and you can't even decide whether or not you want to play.

This may sound cruel to you, and to a lot of people on the board, but God's ultimate priority is not you or anyone else getting to spend eternity in heaven instead of the lake of fire. He does not spend every moment of His existence and every ounce of His energy trying to get as many people as He can saved. He is concerned about His glory as a matter of priority.

We may not like this over here in America, but it is the message of the Bible and it is true. Everything that has been created, everything that has happened, everything that ever will happen, proceeds according to His plan to the praise of the glory of His grace.

If He were not like this, He would be an idolator. For God to seek after anything other than His own glory would be for God to demean Himself, which is idolatry. Jonathan Edwards did a great job in setting this up both biblically and philosophically in The End For Which God Created the World and John Piper does a great job of contemporizing (if that's a word) the concept.

We really must stop thinking that human beings are the most important thing to God. God is the most important thing to God, not us. This is why church services are man-centered, modern Christian music sounds like love songs to Jesus, and debates about salvation all surround the concept of what is fair for man instead of what God says He does for His glory.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
This may sound cruel to you, and to a lot of people on the board, but God's ultimate priority is not you or anyone else getting to spend eternity in heaven instead of the lake of fire. He does not spend every moment of His existence and every ounce of His energy trying to get as many people as He can saved. He is concerned about His glory as a matter of priority.

We may not like this over here in America, but it is the message of the Bible and it is true. Everything that has been created, everything that has happened, everything that ever will happen, proceeds according to His plan to the praise of the glory of His grace.

If He were not like this, He would be an idolator. For God to seek after anything other than His own glory would be for God to demean Himself, which is idolatry. Jonathan Edwards did a great job in setting this up both biblically and philosophically in The End For Which God Created the World and John Piper does a great job of contemporizing (if that's a word) the concept.

We really must stop thinking that human beings are the most important thing to God. God is the most important thing to God, not us. This is why church services are man-centered, modern Christian music sounds like love songs to Jesus, and debates about salvation all surround the concept of what is fair for man instead of what God says He does for His glory.

Calvi, this is one of the best posts I've read on this board. Thank you so much. It goes right to the heart of why God even allowed sin into the world. God could not display ALL of His Glory unless that includes displaying His wrath, righteousness and mercy. And He cannot display His wrath, righteousness and mercy without having objects of wrath. Without objects of wrath, upon whom can He have mercy? Without objects of wrath, upon whom can He display His attribute of righteousness and wrath against unrighteousness? It's all about the Glory of God, not about us.

Is this pure speculation? Nope. Here it is in black and white:

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[Timtoolman]

I disagree of course. phrases like this are strawmen

"He does not spend every moment of His existence and every ounce of His energy trying to get as many people as He can saved. He is concerned about His glory as a matter of priority."

What has this accomplished. Cal it is more like a soap box speech. Who on here that is a non cal is saying that God is using every once of His energy...if the were possiable. We can color things all we want but if its not what people are saying then who are you speaking too?
Great verses npet. Seems God does not want to show off His wrath without first showing patients and mercy and longsuffering to those who will not believe.

 

[webdog]

It goes right to the heart of why God even allowed sin into the world. God could not display ALL of His Glory unless that includes displaying His wrath, righteousness and mercy. And He cannot display His wrath, righteousness and mercy without having objects of wrath.

Another example of man telling God how He "could not" and "cannot" do things "unless". And you guys' say non calvinist's limit God's sovereignty? Only thing I say God "cannot" or "could not" do is go against His Holy nature!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It goes right to the heart of why God even allowed sin into the world. God could not display ALL of His Glory unless that includes displaying His wrath, righteousness and mercy. And He cannot display His wrath, righteousness and mercy without having objects of wrath.

Another example of man telling God how He "could not" and "cannot" do things "unless". And you guys' say non calvinist's limit God's sovereignty? Only thing I say God "cannot" or "could not" do is go against His Holy nature! </font>[/QUOTE]If you can tell me how God can display His wrath against unrighteousness without allowing unrighteousness to exist, I'd love to hear it. Better still, if you provide any scripture references on how God can display His wrath without having any objects of wrath, I'd sure like to see them.

 

[Dave]

The fact is that there is so much focus on one single attribute of God that many people don't want to hear that He is also the Righteous Judge and that He will visit His wrath on sinful man.

He created a perfect world. Man chose to sin. All men inherit that sinful nature and naturally and constantly commit sin against the Holy One.

This is why Jesus is needed. But just because God provided a means to save men, does not mean that He is under ANY obligation to use it to save men. It is an exercise of His immense MERCY that ANY will be saved. The glorious message of Christianity is that there is a way to be saved if only men will seek it.

Of course, the rub there is that most men will not seek it because it requires another work of grace to allow them to see it. The opening of spiritual eyes and ears. That is not something that you can blame God for, however. The wages of sin is death. Sin results in a harder heart with each and every one that is committed.

Unless God does a work of grace in your heart, you will never be saved. Man won't do it. A slave cannot choose his release. A slave to sin can only do what sin allows. That is a slave.

Sorry if that offends someone, but I believe it to be biblical. Many scriptures previously supplied in this and other threads validate it.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It goes right to the heart of why God even allowed sin into the world. God could not display ALL of His Glory unless that includes displaying His wrath, righteousness and mercy. And He cannot display His wrath, righteousness and mercy without having objects of wrath.

Another example of man telling God how He "could not" and "cannot" do things "unless". And you guys' say non calvinist's limit God's sovereignty? Only thing I say God "cannot" or "could not" do is go against His Holy nature! </font>[/QUOTE]If you can tell me how God can display His wrath against unrighteousness without allowing unrighteousness to exist, I'd love to hear it. Better still, if you provide any scripture references on how God can display His wrath without having any objects of wrath, I'd sure like to see them. </font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I responded to. You said "God could not display ALL of His Glory unless...". Who are you to tell God HOW He can and cannot display His glory?

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
This may sound cruel to you, and to a lot of people on the board. . .

You're right, it does. It also sounds terribly inconsistent. If we are nothing to God, why does he care whether or not we glorify him? God's character if he is truly immutable does not change whether or not he is doing things to demonstrate it. The impression you're giving is that God is incomplete without his creation. God is somehow lessened by not having the chance to show his creations (which of course are simultaneously too petty for him to consider, remember) how good, loving, merciful, and just he is. Of course in order to do this he apparently has to use his sovreignty to first make them violate some items on his sin list (which apparently doesn't apply to him) so he can damn many billions of them to hell, and then demonstrate his "mercy" by rescuing a few billion from the mess he got them into in the first place. If this God were a person we would say he was terribly self-centered and insecure.

Originally posted by whatever:
I think God has revealed that He is too merciful to leave my destiny up to me.

Well, that's good for you if you're among those selected for heaven, but what about those selected for hell?

Originally posted by bapmom:
this is why we believe that God has deigned to allow us a "free will." It is HIS choice to let us choose. It is HIS choice to not force us to be with Him....wouldn't that also be cruel? Why force someone to be where they don't want to be? God wanted a true response to Himself, not an automaton that has no choice either way.

I find it hard to get around Romans 9, which specifically states that God made some people simply in order to destroy them. It's backwards from what you're saying--he forced them not to choose him.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I want you all to notice a problem that I have been experiencing in all of these debates so far. I posted the following: "but God's ultimate priority is not you or anyone else getting to spend eternity in heaven instead of the lake of fire. He does not spend every moment of His existence and every ounce of His energy trying to get as many people as He can saved. He is concerned about His glory as a matter of priority."

Petrel then responded directly to this post by saying the following: "If we are nothing to God, why does He care whether or not we glorify Him?"

Now, I ask you, in what part of my post did I say we were nothing to God? My post doesn't even suggest that. It very clearly says we are not His priority. Yet Petrel thinks I am saying we are nothing to God. This is a problem I see with both sides of this debate. We are not being honest with each other's posts. I think we need to be more intellectually honest if we are going to have true debate.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Petrel:
God's character if he is truly immutable does not change whether or not he is doing things to demonstrate it.

I agree with you, here. Hence, the definition of "glorifying God" does not have anything to do with increasing the intrinsic value of God in any aspect of His being. It has to do with the creature visibly showing God to be who He is to other creatures.

The impression you're giving is that God is incomplete without his creation.

If I thought this was true from my statement I would bring myself up on charges of heresy.

God is somehow lessened by not having the chance to show his creations (which of course are simultaneously too petty for him to consider, remember) how good, loving, merciful, and just he is.

God can neither be increased nor lessened. That is part of what it means for Him to be God. And I never said He did not consider his creations. I said we are not number 1 on His priority list, like we want to think we are. He is not an idolator.

Of course in order to do this he apparently has to use his sovreignty to first make them violate some items on his sin list

God does not need to use His sovereignty to make us violate items on His sin list. We do just fine on our own doing that. I might break with some other Calvinists on that point, but I do believe that we choose to sin.

(which apparently doesn't apply to him)

God's character is the defining line of what it means to either be on his sin list or off his sin list.

so he can damn many billions of them to hell,

"But each man is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. And lust when it is conceived brings forth sin, and sin when it is finished brings forth death."

and then demonstrate his "mercy" by rescuing a few billion from the mess he got them into in the first place.

You were ok until the last phrase. Besides, it's going to be an innumerable amount of people.

If this God were a person we would say he was terribly self-centered and insecure.

This God is not beholden to our psychological evaluations. This God is not a person. We don't measure Him by our standards. He is self-centered. He is the only being for whom it is righteous for Him to be self-centered. He has no reason to be insecure because He is God and is in complete control of everything.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

We are now in that area of theology called theodicy -- attempting to justify the ways of God toward men. Petrel's comments remind me of how the poet MacLeish frames the issue, putting into the mouth of his character, J.B. (a modernization of Job), the couplet, "If God is good, He is not God; if God is God, He is not good."

But that is all from our human perspective. It is not so much that God sends us to hell, some location of eternal torment, as it is that we send ourselves to isolation from Him. We put ourselves into "hell" -- the anguish of broken fellowship. And so grace means that God Himself accepts our brokenness, suffers it Himself on the cross, and reaches out to draw us to Himself. If we choose not to accept the invitation, we will continue to suffer -- but that's not about the arbitrariness of God. That's about our self-destructive sin.

By the way, I don't think there is or ever will be a satisfactory answer to the intellectual puzzle that theodicy poses. But for me there is a satisfying spiritual answer -- "Look, Father, look, on His anointed head, and only look on us as found in Him. For lo between our sins and their reward we set the passion of Thy son, our Lord."

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Joseph M. Smith:
By the way, I don't think there is or ever will be a satisfactory answer to the intellectual puzzle that theodicy poses. But for me there is a satisfying spiritual answer -- "Look, Father, look, on His anointed head, and only look on us as found in Him. For lo between our sins and their reward we set the passion of Thy son, our Lord."

Amen brother!!!

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
Now, I ask you, in what part of my post did I say we were nothing to God? My post doesn't even suggest that. It very clearly says we are not His priority. Yet Petrel thinks I am saying we are nothing to God. This is a problem I see with both sides of this debate. We are not being honest with each other's posts. I think we need to be more intellectually honest if we are going to have true debate.

If God specifically made us in order to send most of us to eternal torture and cause the rest to think he's amazing, yes, I'd say that says we're nothing to God. I find it curious that you don't think that it does.

I agree with you, here. Hence, the definition of "glorifying God" does not have anything to do with increasing the intrinsic value of God in any aspect of His being. It has to do with the creature visibly showing God to be who He is to other creatures. . . He has no reason to be insecure because He is God and is in complete control of everything.

If God is so secure, why does he need his creations to go around telling each other how great he is? He is equally great whether or not they do that.

God does not need to use His sovereignty to make us violate items on His sin list.

Then how do you interpret Romans 9?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Petrel:
If God specifically made us in order to send most of us to eternal torture and cause the rest to think he's amazing, yes, I'd say that says we're nothing to God. I find it curious that you don't think that it does.

God made us for His glory.

If God is so secure, why does he need his creations to go around telling each other how great he is? He is equally great whether or not they do that.

1) God does not need anything. He might demand some things. He might require of us some things. He might create things to work for a specific purpose. But God does not need anything.

2) You really need to read a little C.S. Lewis. He might not have all his theology correct, but his testimony to this is amazing. He, like you had a terrible distate for a God who demanded that His creatures praise Him. He especially disliked the Psalms. That was until he understood the nature of praise. We naturally praise what we enjoy the most - our favorite sports team, favorite restaurant, favorite movie, our spouse. It is only natural that the one being that is supremely enjoyable (God) should be worthy of the most praise.

Then how do you interpret Romans 9?

Are you asking if I believe in double predestination, or active reprobation? I'm not sure Romans 9 is necessarily a proof-text for that, although it comes very close.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by whatever:
I think God has revealed that He is too merciful to leave my destiny up to me.

Well, that's good for you if you're among those selected for heaven, but what about those selected for hell?
</font>[/QUOTE]Brutally honest answer: I don't know. He has only told us what He has told us. I do know that their condemnation is just. I do not know how that glorifies God, apart from what Scripture says about displaying God's wrath against unrighteousness.

I cannot say that I like that. I cannot say that I understand it. I can say that I believe it. Whether it appeals to me, or whether I understand it, has no relationship with whether it is true. So I cannot let go of the Bible. If I did, where would I go?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joseph M. Smith:
It is not so much that God sends us to hell, some location of eternal torment, as it is that we send ourselves to isolation from Him. We put ourselves into "hell" -- the anguish of broken fellowship. And so grace means that God Himself accepts our brokenness, suffers it Himself on the cross, and reaches out to draw us to Himself. If we choose not to accept the invitation, we will continue to suffer -- but that's not about the arbitrariness of God. That's about our self-destructive sin.

You make it sound like the only ones who go to hell will go there because they chose to reject the invitation. I disagree with posing this as a matter of an "invitation" or "offer" but for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Salvation is determined by whether or not we accept the invitation.

Think for a moment. Where were we headed before we even knew there WAS an invitation? Why were we headed there? It wasn't because we had rejected anything because we didn't know about any invitation.

We are born deserving of hell. God would not be unjust to send us all there and save no one. It has nothing to do with self-destructive rejection of an invitation.