TheTravelingMinstrel
New Member
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY!
God does as he pleases.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dispensational fairness doctrine?
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
God does as he pleases.
TheTravelingMinstrel
New Member
I used the word 'chance' because I couldn't think of a better word. (hence, the quotation)
my whole point from the start was that God does as he pleases and He doesn't have to be 'fair'
my whole point from the start was that God does as he pleases and He doesn't have to be 'fair'
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY!
God does as he pleases.</font>[/QUOTE]Give that man a spritual cigar (whatever that is).
And I'm really glad, too. If God did as I pleased we'd be in gherkin the size of Texas.
From the Angry Beavers:
Doc: We're in the middle of a big pickle.
Oxnard: What kind of pickle, doc?
Doc: Well, imagine the largest gherkin you've ever seen. Then magnify it a thousand-fold.
Toluca; Eeek!
Ray Berrian
New Member
Dr. James Strong in his "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible says, 'As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I {miseo} (miseho) detested or loved less. [Greek Dictionary of the New Testament in rear of the book page 48 -- right top column.
God has always known that Pharaoh's name was not written in 'the book of life,' [Revelation 20:15] and that he will yet appear before His 'Great White Throne Judgment.' [Revelation 20:11 as one of the 'great' and rebellious sinners.
The Bible does not say he was raised up before the eyes of the world as an example of how God can autocratically damn a sinner, nor does His Word say that this is the way He is going to deal with 'those He passes by,' or outright damns.
What is the reason why Pharaoh appears in his own generation and later in this Romans nine account. The answer is that 'Even for this same purpose have I raised the up, (why?) that I might show My power in thee, and that My Name might be declared throughout all the earth.'
Pharaoh become an example of how God can deal with obstreperous sinners.
If I had been Pharaoh and had seen each of His plagues on my people I would have thought, "The Lord must be God especially because I have seen His mighty acts." But in Pharaoh's case his kingdom and earthly authority ended up destroying his soul in Hell.
God has always known that Pharaoh's name was not written in 'the book of life,' [Revelation 20:15] and that he will yet appear before His 'Great White Throne Judgment.' [Revelation 20:11 as one of the 'great' and rebellious sinners.
The Bible does not say he was raised up before the eyes of the world as an example of how God can autocratically damn a sinner, nor does His Word say that this is the way He is going to deal with 'those He passes by,' or outright damns.
What is the reason why Pharaoh appears in his own generation and later in this Romans nine account. The answer is that 'Even for this same purpose have I raised the up, (why?) that I might show My power in thee, and that My Name might be declared throughout all the earth.'
Pharaoh become an example of how God can deal with obstreperous sinners.
If I had been Pharaoh and had seen each of His plagues on my people I would have thought, "The Lord must be God especially because I have seen His mighty acts." But in Pharaoh's case his kingdom and earthly authority ended up destroying his soul in Hell.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Semantics. Hate = love less. So what? The point is God doesn't treat everyone the same which is the point you have made by admitting that God loves some people less than others.
He loves his elect more and the children of wrath less. OK? How does that still not support the Calvistic view of scripture? How does God's loving certain individual or even entire nations less than others fit into the Arminians system of fairness?
Sam
I know you were, that was my version of an Amen, and let me word it differently. I was speaking to the ones that are arguing that God has to be "fair" as far as the "chance" thing, I see many arminians saying it is a chance, and it is not, it is a condition. What lifeguard looks down from his chair and says "DO YOU WANT ME TO SAVE YOU!" to the guy at the bottom of the pool.
The interpretation being referred to at the beginning of the thread was mainly suggested by me, as the other non-calvinists didn't seem to be addressing John 6 at the time, and the Calvinists were of course running off with this as the ultimate proof of their view.
So I simply turned to the passage, and as I explain on my site: "notice[d] that in the context, this was before the crucifixion and outpouring of the Spirit. 6:45 gives us the reference to several Old Testament passages prophesying God's outpouring of His Spirit on "all flesh" (Is.54:13, Jer.31:34, Micah 4:2). Before, God had only called Israel, and only the prophets had the Spirit. But now, Israel was "hardened" as Romans 9 teaches, so that's why they (who should have been first in heralding the Messiah) were not being called then. Christ was beginning His following with the disciples, and no one could become apart of this group unless called, but this doesn't say that only certain (and relatively few at that) people would ever be called when salvation was opened up after His death and resurrection. All would be drawn then (ch.12:32), as His convicting Spirit would be poured out on all. (This does not mean that all would come, as we will see). Calvinists will then make an argument "what about those who weren't called before or during Christ's ministry", but just as God accepted gentiles who joined Israel and kept the Law, everyone has some sense of God's Law as Romans 2 shows, people had a chance to follow God by faith and would be saved the same way faithful Israelites were saved by Christ's death reaching back to them."
Also, people are getting a bit carried away with "God does as He pleases". That is true, but the way it is being used, He could still decide to send the "elect" to Hell after all, and if you say "but He promised", that too could just be "your concept", just like "fairness". People did not make up "fairness" to make God into a "lovable fuzzball", it is based on scriptures, just like you say yours is. It is not what God can do, but what He actually will do (based on His principles--He obviously doesn't do everything He "can"), and the problem is harmonizing the scriptures both sides use to prove their view, realizing that how God operates outside of time is not totally understandable to us. You don't expect to be able to teach some position as scandalous as this (God leaves many without possibility to get saved) and then claim "His ways are higher than yours" to silence the other side.
[ February 01, 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
So I simply turned to the passage, and as I explain on my site: "notice[d] that in the context, this was before the crucifixion and outpouring of the Spirit. 6:45 gives us the reference to several Old Testament passages prophesying God's outpouring of His Spirit on "all flesh" (Is.54:13, Jer.31:34, Micah 4:2). Before, God had only called Israel, and only the prophets had the Spirit. But now, Israel was "hardened" as Romans 9 teaches, so that's why they (who should have been first in heralding the Messiah) were not being called then. Christ was beginning His following with the disciples, and no one could become apart of this group unless called, but this doesn't say that only certain (and relatively few at that) people would ever be called when salvation was opened up after His death and resurrection. All would be drawn then (ch.12:32), as His convicting Spirit would be poured out on all. (This does not mean that all would come, as we will see). Calvinists will then make an argument "what about those who weren't called before or during Christ's ministry", but just as God accepted gentiles who joined Israel and kept the Law, everyone has some sense of God's Law as Romans 2 shows, people had a chance to follow God by faith and would be saved the same way faithful Israelites were saved by Christ's death reaching back to them."
Also, people are getting a bit carried away with "God does as He pleases". That is true, but the way it is being used, He could still decide to send the "elect" to Hell after all, and if you say "but He promised", that too could just be "your concept", just like "fairness". People did not make up "fairness" to make God into a "lovable fuzzball", it is based on scriptures, just like you say yours is. It is not what God can do, but what He actually will do (based on His principles--He obviously doesn't do everything He "can"), and the problem is harmonizing the scriptures both sides use to prove their view, realizing that how God operates outside of time is not totally understandable to us. You don't expect to be able to teach some position as scandalous as this (God leaves many without possibility to get saved) and then claim "His ways are higher than yours" to silence the other side.
[ February 01, 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
Again let me point out this is not our "ultimate proof". Our proof is the whole of scripture. You cannot say that the bible does not define election. It is all over the place. To believe otherwise is to not believe bible. The problematic verses you define by those verses that are not problematic. Augustine - Let scripture interpret scripture.
No, because God is faithful. He is not swerving in this. Our assurance is not based on whether we meant a prayer it is based upon the faithfulness of our God.
I believe it was not us who said that but Paul in Romans 9 "Who are you Oh Man to talk back to God? How can you say "why did you make me like this, or does not the potter have right over the clay?"
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Eric,
You say that as if you believe everyone deserves the possibility to get saved. That is your western mind at work, demanding the people's right to equality. Well, this aint no Democracy. We don't get a vote. What you "Freewillies" don't seem to understand is that God doesn't have to save anyone! He has mercy on whosoever he wants to have mercy and he hardens whosoever he wants to harden. He owes you nothing, but yet you demand that he gives everyone a "chance" to be saved. You want your rights, run for congress. But stop forcing your rights upon God.
Rights?...............Right
Sam
You all are still insisting that it is us who are "demanding" God to give everyone a "chance", but since He does not "have" to, He just doesn't. There are plenty scriptures showing that this is not God's purpose, and once again, He does not do everything that He "can".
(BTW, the fact that you link my objection with "western mindset" and "democracy" proves that Paul's Romans 9 "Who are you Oh Man to talk back to God? How can you say "why did you make me like this, or does not the potter have right over the clay?" is not adressed to people offended at the idea of God leaving people without chance to be saved. Nobody thought about such things back then; it was Augustine who first posited the idea, and people after him who became offended at it.)
(BTW, the fact that you link my objection with "western mindset" and "democracy" proves that Paul's Romans 9 "Who are you Oh Man to talk back to God? How can you say "why did you make me like this, or does not the potter have right over the clay?" is not adressed to people offended at the idea of God leaving people without chance to be saved. Nobody thought about such things back then; it was Augustine who first posited the idea, and people after him who became offended at it.)
So what you're saying is that Augustine inserted the verses, 'Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"' in order to create the context of mercy and God's pleasure. Fascinating! I never heard that before.Originally posted by Eric B:
Nobody thought about such things back then; it was Augustine who first posited the idea, and people after him who became offended at it.)
No, Augustine didn't insert verses, he hastily interpreted them to mean what he thought they meant (God "hardens" in order to permanently shut people out of salvation), instead of checking the context and remembering Peter's advice (2 Pet. 3:15,16) about how easy it is to misunderstand Paul.
Is that what Augustine said? That's a serious question, because I'd never heard that. Can you quote Augustine on that?
The reason I ask, is because it makes the same mistake as most of the Arminians here - it adds an unsaid motive to the action. There is no doubt that God hardens people. But to say "God "hardens" in order to permanently shut people out of salvation" adds to that the assumption that you know God's motives for hardening.
That sounds very much unlike what I hear from Calvinists regarding that verse, hence my suspicion that Augustine didn't say that, either. The motive is certainly not an assumption of mine, and if it's not an assumption of Calvinism, then your claim that it was an interpretation added to the text has no merit with respect to Calvinists, at least, and possibly Augustine, as well.
(Either you or Augustine need to watch your split infinitives, by the way.)
The problem is, there are many different stripes of Calvinists, and many do say God intentinally damns people for His glory. that's where the whole "Is God Unjust/and you say who are you man to reply back/God hardens who He will" interpretation came in. Then somme of you didn't like this, and tried to refine it so that God is not so active in damning.
My reference to Augustine meant that he was the first to interpret the scriptures as meaning that God is willing to save only some, and pass over the rest.
My reference to Augustine meant that he was the first to interpret the scriptures as meaning that God is willing to save only some, and pass over the rest.
But that's not what you said. And as far as I've seen, that's not what any of the Calvinists here say. If, as you say, many of us really "do say God intentinally damns people for His glory" then perhaps you can provide a quote or two so we'll know that you aren't simply making it up. Otherwise, you probably owe us an apology for repeatedly putting words in the mouth of Augustine and Calvinists regarding the motives of God.
I was in a mad rush out the door when I wrote the response about Augustine, so it didn't come out as well as it should. Maybe he didn't phrase it in terms of intentional damning, but his doctrine of election led to that idea. Yet now it seems you're calling into question whether any Calvinists ever believed God intentionally damns people.
This is from a website someone here linked to a few months ago:
This is from a website someone here linked to a few months ago:
James White in The Potter's Freedom states:
I have also read elsehwere quotes from Calvin himself, Pink, and other professed supralapsarian double-predestinarians, but those two should be example enough. And the rest of you use the same passages, which lead to the same thing, so people need to come to grips with what their own doctrine really implies instead of accusing others of misrepresenting.
The most emotional argument against Unconditional Election that I have been confronted by has come from women who cannot bear to think that their children might not be "elect" or "saved". This argument is almost always expressed in terms of "Fairness". They conclude that Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace cannot be true because the God of the Calvinist is so unfair.
The flip side of that coin - The popular decisional regeneration side or free will position - says that every person has the ability to make the choice to be or not to be saved when he or she hears the gospel. But this seems to me to be an even greater Unfairness because God has left the preaching and the witnessing of the Gospel up to whimsical and many times disobedient Christians.
If Christians don't go preach and witness - they (the lost) won't hear the gospel and cannot possibly be saved. And how many times do Christians choose not to go?
Plenty. Is that fair to the lost that would have been saved if Christians had but witnessed to them?
If a Christian witnesses to one and not to another - the first has a chance to be saved and the other does not. Yet the witnessing might have depended on how the Christian felt at the moment or how big of a hurry he or she was in. Is that fair?
The biggest problem of Arminianism is that it leaves Hell wide open to receive masses of God’s most crowning creation – mankind - who never had a chance to hear the gospel and who would have been saved but for the sinfulness and disobedience of the saved who didn’t go or who wouldn’t go and share Jesus Christ with the lost.
That to me seems to be much more unfair than unconditional election where everyone (God and man) gets exactly what they want.
The flip side of that coin - The popular decisional regeneration side or free will position - says that every person has the ability to make the choice to be or not to be saved when he or she hears the gospel. But this seems to me to be an even greater Unfairness because God has left the preaching and the witnessing of the Gospel up to whimsical and many times disobedient Christians.
If Christians don't go preach and witness - they (the lost) won't hear the gospel and cannot possibly be saved. And how many times do Christians choose not to go?
Plenty. Is that fair to the lost that would have been saved if Christians had but witnessed to them?
If a Christian witnesses to one and not to another - the first has a chance to be saved and the other does not. Yet the witnessing might have depended on how the Christian felt at the moment or how big of a hurry he or she was in. Is that fair?
The biggest problem of Arminianism is that it leaves Hell wide open to receive masses of God’s most crowning creation – mankind - who never had a chance to hear the gospel and who would have been saved but for the sinfulness and disobedience of the saved who didn’t go or who wouldn’t go and share Jesus Christ with the lost.
That to me seems to be much more unfair than unconditional election where everyone (God and man) gets exactly what they want.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Sturgman,
I read your pool illustration.
The thing you did not point out is that it is more like we are all in the middle of the ocean and we all need saving. [Romans 3:23] We believe that Jesus, as it were, has thrown out to each lost person a life-belt. Only He can pull us in to safety on His ship called,
Heaven & Eternal Life.
I read your pool illustration.
The thing you did not point out is that it is more like we are all in the middle of the ocean and we all need saving. [Romans 3:23] We believe that Jesus, as it were, has thrown out to each lost person a life-belt. Only He can pull us in to safety on His ship called,
Heaven & Eternal Life.
Hi Npetreley;
A quote from you;
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Arminian position seems to be that in Jonn 3:16 words like "whosoever" must refer to all mankind. Why must it refer to all mankind? Because if God did not enable all men to choose to believe of their own free will, God would not be "fair". And since God is "fair", then John 3:16 must refer to all mankind.
------------------------------------------------------
Because oh I don't know because that's what they mean?
This has nothing to do with being fair.Please note that It doesn't say anyone who might be a Calvinist.Calvinist do not make up the whole world and this is who Christ died for.
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
These words that you try to change the meaning of, really bothers you don't they.I would encourage you to ask God to show you the truth.When something as plain as "whosoever" and "world" is misunderstood there is something wrong isn't there.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Remember All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved .Isn't God wonderful! He love me too.
Romanbear
A quote from you;
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Arminian position seems to be that in Jonn 3:16 words like "whosoever" must refer to all mankind. Why must it refer to all mankind? Because if God did not enable all men to choose to believe of their own free will, God would not be "fair". And since God is "fair", then John 3:16 must refer to all mankind.
------------------------------------------------------
Because oh I don't know because that's what they mean?
This has nothing to do with being fair.Please note that It doesn't say anyone who might be a Calvinist.Calvinist do not make up the whole world and this is who Christ died for.
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
These words that you try to change the meaning of, really bothers you don't they.I would encourage you to ask God to show you the truth.When something as plain as "whosoever" and "world" is misunderstood there is something wrong isn't there.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Remember All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved .Isn't God wonderful! He love me too.
Romanbear