Do we worship the same God?

[Benjamin]

Not discounting, but do see many non Cals do tend to place emphasis on love before all other of His attributes!

I see Cals minimalizing God’s attribute of being love to justify their doctrines, denying His Omnipotence toward His ability to create creatures with the human volition to freely choose and still fulfill His plan in love, and putting His Omniscience in a box claiming He is unable to know all while allowing for creation of the design of His creatures with true free will.

 

[JonC]

I see Cals minimalizing God’s attribute of being love to justify their doctrines, denying His Omnipotence toward His ability to create creatures with the human volition to freely choose and still fulfill His plan in love, and putting His Omniscience in a box claiming He is unable to know all while allowing for creation of the design of His creatures with true free will.

How we see God determines on what attribute we emphasize.

There was an interesting book (a study) titled America’s Four God’s: What We say about God & what that Says about us by Christopher Bader and Paul Froese. The book was written in 2010 using 2005 demographics from a study of religious views. What was interesting is how a people’s experience plays into their view of God and the emphasis they place on various attributes.

Calvinists hold justice as the central attribute towards which all other aspects of God (to include love) acquiesce within the plan of redemption. This is because divine justice is the “problem” redemption has to overcome. Post-Beza Calvinism moved providence to the base of soteriology (something Calvin was reluctant or too indecisive to do). These things come into play when we consider how and why Calvinists believe what they believe.

And this is not only a “Calvinistic problem”. We all have these presuppositions which can affect how we minimalize some doctrines while magnifying others, resulting in distorting passages. I think this is evident when we look at free-will. Contemporary Arminianism distorts divine sovereignty because of what it sees in the freedom (and accountability) of mankind. Open-Theism is a direct result of magnifying some aspects denied by some people to the point it rejects the traditional definition of "omniscience".

It is interesting to discuss.

 

[Dave G]

I see Cals minimalizing God’s attribute of being love to justify their doctrines, denying His Omnipotence toward His ability to create creatures with the human volition to freely choose and still fulfill His plan in love, and putting His Omniscience in a box claiming He is unable to know all while allowing for creation of the design of His creatures with true free will.

I see those that emphasize man's will over God's will as minimalizing God's holiness, righteousness and judgment to justify their doctrines... denying His omnipotence toward His ability to create creatures who have already used their human volition to freely choose, to hate Him.

Yet, He still fulfills His plan in righteousness and judgment to save some and cast the rest into hell... taking His Omniscience, Omni-presence, and Omnipotence out of the box that man has placed them in, and putting them in open display within the pages of His word.

He not only knows all, but has planned for things so far in advance that it would make mere men's minds stagger under the immense load of His every plan-within-a-plan-within-a-plan.



Scripture specifically tells us that man's will is not free, as true free will was abrogated in the Garden... and mankind's will is now corrupt and cannot be trusted to do anything good towards God, not even to seek Him.

Why?

Because the heart is hopelessly corrupt...darkened and alienated from God.
With that corrupt heart comes the will and the mind.
They march together, in tune with each other...the heart leads, while the others follow.

Again:

Psalms 10:2-4.
Psalms 14:1-3
Psalms 58:3.
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Ecclesiastes 9:3
Jeremiah 13:23.
Jeremiah 17:9.
Matthew 15:18-19.
Mark 7:20-23.
John 3:19-20.
Romans 1:18-32.
Romans 3:10-18.
Romans 3:23.
Romans 6:6-7.
Romans 6:20.
Ephesians 4:17-19.
Ephesians 4:22.


Free, unbiased will ( true free will ) is an illusion not supported anywhere in God's word.
Since man's heart is hopelessly corrupt and desperately needs to be replaced by a merciful God ( who is the only one who can do it ), the will is guaranteed to follow.

In the Bible it's called the new birth.

" Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. " ( John 3:3 ).


The heart of man is the problem...not the will.

 

[1689Dave]

I often tell people if Calvin was right about God, churches are packed today with idol worshippers who hate God with a passion.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I often tell people if Calvin was right about God, churches are packed today with idol worshippers who hate God with a passion.

Yea but you are a pacifist so how much credibility can you have? Listen, before you can ever see the kingdom of God you must be born again... that is both straightforward and biblical.... and that’s an act of God via the HS.

 

[1689Dave]

Yea but you are a pacifist so how much credibility can you have? Listen, before you can ever see the kingdom of God you must be born again... that is both straightforward and biblical.... and that’s an act of God via the HS.

Who did Jesus or the disciples kill? Or defend themselves from using violence?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Who did Jesus or the disciples kill? Or defend themselves from using violence?

Did I say kill.... no you said kill

 

[JonC]

Who did Jesus or the disciples kill? Or defend themselves from using violence?

What??!!! Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus was oppressed and afflicted and did not fight back against this oppression and affliction but remained silent? Do you honestly believe that Christ accomplished God's will by being like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, rather than like a lion devouring those in his path?

 

[1689Dave]

Who did Jesus or the disciples kill? Or defend themselves from using violence?

Do you support violent self defense to the point of killing enemies you are supposed to love?

 

[1689Dave]

What??!!! Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus was oppressed and afflicted and did not fight back against this oppression and affliction but remained silent? Do you honestly believe that Christ accomplished God's will by being like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, rather than like a lion devouring those in his path?

We are to follow his example and take the cross, and put away the sword. If Jesus thought like many of his professors, he would have used the myriads of angels at his disposal to conquer Rome and avoid the cross.

 

[JonC]

Do you support violent self defense to the point of killing enemies you are supposed to love?

Do I? No.

 

[Reformed]

Do I? No.

If you break into my house and threaten harm to my family, you will encounter either .45 or 9 mm ammo, depending on which weapon I get to first.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

If you break into my house and threaten harm to my family, you will encounter either .45 or 9 mm ammo, depending on which weapon I get to first.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Why would I break into your house?

More importantly, is this a way of you telling me not to break into your house or to come well armed?

The bottom line is that I am not telling people what to do, although I am confident others are more than willing to prescribe for me what I "should" do and that prescription alien from Scripture. I am not saying that I will not prevent someone from harming my family. But I am saying that I would not intentionally kill someone for trying to harm me or my family. At one time I think I had that level of hate for these hypothetical villains (hypothetical not because these types of people do not exist but because the situation itself is hypothetical). But I can't say that I've harbored a hatred for anyone (real or imagined) since I've been saved.

I suppose the true test of the matter would be for someone to break in to my home. I have several guns (at one time I hunted, I often go to the rifle and pistol range, and I have shotguns for skeet that are not particular about where the end of the barrel points when the trigger is pulled). I do not know if my anger would get the better of me if placed in certain situations, but I do know the principles to which I strive to live.

It is very difficult for me to imagine Christ advocating a life spiritually antithetical to the life He lived, but perhaps not so hard to imagine how that life would look as people live it out for us daily.

 

[1689Dave]

If you break into my house and threaten harm to my family, you will encounter either .45 or 9 mm ammo, depending on which weapon I get to first.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

This is not in line with loving enemies and not resisting evil.

 

[Reformed]

Why would I break into your house?

My post was not about you. It is a general statement about my willingness to protect my family. I certainly do not want to use any of my weapons for the purpose of preserving my life or the lives of others. I will do almost anything to avoid a situation in which deadly force is necessary. Unfortunately, there are times when we could be faced with a situation in which, if we do nothing, lives may be put at risk. I am not a pacifist, so I will act.

 

[Reformed]

This is not in line with loving enemies and not resisting evil.

I view Matthew 5:44 different than you. I view it from a perspective of persecution of the Christian faith.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you break into my house and threaten harm to my family, you will encounter either .45 or 9 mm ammo, depending on which weapon I get to first.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Just don’t kill him ... put a few rounds in legs etc.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I view Matthew 5:44 different than you. I view it from a perspective of persecution of the Christian faith.

Face it.... Jersey attitude!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Face it.... Jersey attitude!

I’d just let the dogs tear them apart.

 

[JonC]

I view Matthew 5:44 different than you. I view it from a perspective of persecution of the Christian faith.

The context of Matthew 5 does not allow that interpretation (the "love your enemies" section at least in this passage is a part of a broader dialogue).

But it also does not necessarily support pacifism (it could refer literally to love and hate rather than action). A soldier who shoots an enemy, for example, could do it out of hate or could reluctantly out of a higher duty.