Does anything we do matter?

The doctor has to tell you what he has to tell you, even if it's not going to prolong your life.
My grandmother lay dying in her deathbed years ago. The doctor said there was nothing else we could do, and that part of the cause of her soon-coming (then) demise was cigarettes. She was a chain smoker.
She craved for cigarettes even when she was told it was what was literally going to kill her in x number of days.
Everybody didn't want to let her smoke, except my uncle, who was a non-smoker.
He gave her the cigarette she craved for.
She smoked like she always had until she breathed her last.
But she was an unbeliever, we all were at that point in time.

I was diagnosed with diabetes2 12 years ago, told to stay away from ALL the foods I loved, and go on this or that diet. My question was: will it make my diabetes go away ? The answer was: no, but it will be brought under control.
My second question: if it comes under control, will it eventually go away ?
The answer was: no, it may become exacerbated by food you eat unknowingly but eventually come under control again.
My third question: will I have to keep taking those pills ?
The answer was: yes.

So I ignored the doctor.
My thinking was: My times are in thy hand (Psalm 31:15,a)...
Four years later, I had a quadruple bypass.
I still ignored the advices.
Then I went back to that psalm and noticed the rest of the psalms: deliver me from the hand of mine enemies , and from them that persecute me.

Here was the writer acknowledging that it is God who holds His life in His hands, not His enemies, and so to God He cries out for deliverance. And then there is Hezekiah (2 Kings 20) whose life God extended. Could it be that Hezekiah's life according to the Lord's timetable was really up to the time of His extension for the creature ? You know, like I suspect a "sale" is not really a "sale" because the downprice has already been predetermined to be the profit price even when the tag was higher ?

I don't really know.
I have since decided that if God wants me home, then not all the quitting of this or that, not all the exercise and the exercise machines and the weights and the treadmills, not all the coaching and the dieting and the controlling of this diabetes and this hypertension will make any difference.

And along with that realization, I did go on a diet, cut off a lot of the foods I liked, quit tobacco (off and on smoker since 1992), and lost 45 lbs over a course of 5 years, and I FEEL A HELLUVA LOT BETTERRRRRR.

So in so many words, yeah, I'll do what the doctor says, and trust God for His decisions.
Win-win, both ways.

 

Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them. Ps 139:16

In reference to this passage it was an Old Baptist at a non-denominational Bible class years ago that said, "I don't believe you can't add any years to your life, but I do believe you can add life to your years".

Yea, losing some weight would do a lot of us some good.

 

Black beans, some corn & brown rice for dinner. talk about diet!

 

And Grits.

 

Scripture does not support either determinism or fatalism.

 

Correct... Suggesting that it does, as many here have, is a conflation of a soteriological tenet with the overall picture of God and man.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::love2:

 

Some of your posts leave that up to the interpretation of the reader, and you have not always been clear enough to make sure that we don't think that you mean just that. Especially when you get into a heated argument and try pressing a point.

IF... A person actually believed that all events are determined or decreed, then our actions would indeed be rather meaningless. I'm of a mind that the jury is still out on that one, but in any case, our actions, of course, have consequences. God says so! God also says that He is not the author of sin, and that there is no "darkness" within Him. He says other things like, "Be holy as I am holy," etc., all of which should clue us in to the fact that God is indeed not the deterministic author of our own sinful actions.

In a sense, you have taken an argument and ran to the logical conclusion of the thing, and in so doing you have traveled past the place where Scripture allows us to go. In the Word, we see an utterly sovereign God who has ALL THINGS under His control. Yet, we also see in that same Word the fact that we are culpable for our own sinful words, deeds, actions, and thoughts. In fact the Word is very plain, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That does not make it seem like we have any hope of rationalizing away our sin!

Again, if one is "determined and decreed" to sin, then they might not be truly sorry for their sin, yet we find in the Word that God hardens hearts just so a particular person might indeed sin, and in some cases those individuals later repented of their sin and in some cases they never did. As God was the one who hardened the hearts, He must also have decided whether or not a person could repent!

But, perhaps a better question would be, "Why is it that we (any of us!) is in fact sorry for our sin?" Is it not because we are confronted with the holiness of Almighty God? Or, do you think that it is possible for we humans to be sorry for our sin (and "sorry" is not technically a biblical concept, "repentance means far more than "sorry" and it is in fact a "turning from and turning to" scenario) without God? I doubt that is true, both from experience and from the sure Word of Truth. Most people that I have seen who are not born again believers are more sorry that they were caught than that they sinned, and no one has to teach a child to hide his or her sin via lie, or other deception. Seems to just come naturally. Prying a "sorry" out of a child (or adult!) generally takes some external coercion, and that is, in the sense of salvation, what God does both through the preacher/teacher, the Word, and the Holy Spirit who convicts.

It is interesting, in a theological sense, that God makes us, who have no ability to not sin, culpable for our sin. Paul spends a lot of time building this argument in Romans. We are called "slaves to sin" in the Word, and indeed that seems to be the case. But, some theological systems must get around that fact, and so they invent a means by which a human is not culpable of their sin until after they have come to Christ. That is a weird twist on the order found in the Scriptures, which say (as noted above) that ALL are indeed sinners and that ALL deserve death for their sin, save that Christ came and imputed His righteousness and took that death-dealing sin from us onto Himself as the atoning perfect sacrificial lamb of God.

 

Well, I liked it when you held him in check by saying, "Luke, respectfully, I don't agree with you here. In your zeal to present a sovereign God, I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of Scripture in a place or two, and no matter how we wish to argue a Reformed position logically, we can only argue it "Scripturally" and remain faithful to God at His Word."

But the point of disagreement I thought you might be thinking of was when you wrote: "You do seem to be soft on the concept of God's permissive will, and from your posts, seem to make God actively in control of sin, which would (as others have suggested) make God a sinner or the author of sin, which we cannot say or do.

That God can sovereignly and simply "allow" or "sidestep" sin in those creatures already rebellious and in sin is one thing. To say that God placed that rebellion in them, and that He is the author of sin is another. God can be sovereign while allowing sin for some purpose of His divine will that brings the greater good without specifically instigating that same sin.

Again, we cannot say that God, somehow, is sin or is the author of sin. It just cannot be! There is no shadow within God. God is light and there is no darkness. He merely allows darkness to exist by His absence."

That was the point I was taking up with him as well, if you remember. Again, I know you are closer regarding you soteriological views, I mean heaven forbid you admit to be in agreement with me about anything and thus ruin your reputation with the others, but I don't think you would say things like,

"God kills men but it is not murder.
God takes from men but it is not stealing.
God batters men but it is not abuse.

....God's power, plan and purpose are at the back of every deed ever done." -Luke

Would you?

Honestly, it is my sincere effort to help Luke see that his words matter and I really do believe his words go beyond Calvinism and into a place that most true Calvinist would never trod. Why? Because where is goes is beyond scripture and into speculation and in doing so seems to impugn the holiness of God, even if only unintentionally. I'd say it "fine" to err on the side of Calvinism's view of Sovereignty, but to err in the ditch of the extremists that call themselves Calvinists to the neglect of his holiness and utter separateness from sin (even if only in overstated and unreasoned terminology), is simply unacceptable.

I never claimed their was. Please hear what I'm saying. I'm not trying to say that you or Ware are in agreement with me, or even that you and I are closer in our views than you and Luke are. But, I am saying that you (and Ware) are not in agreement with Luke on some of these points regarding God's role in the origin of evil and the cause of sin.

 

Oh, and glfredrick, you said,

And that was in response to the quote: "God ordained that I would eat a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch."

Yet, Luke would have no qualms whatsoever saying that God not only ordained what you ate for lunch, but that God ordains the movement of every atom or molecule to ever exist. Further he wouldn't have any problem saying that Dahmer's heinous crimes "were ordained and decreed by God in the same way" as the crucifixion of Christ.

Maybe Luke IS your straw-man?

 

How are you defining determinism?

 

....whew, talk about bookoo carbs....

 

Yes but they are complex carbs not white bread

The black beans also provide protean without animal fat, the brown rice is unbleached & takes long to digest in the digestional track....now if I had a beer or two or three.:smilewinkgrin:

 

No Grits...No No No

 

Let me throw in this question regarding Acts 2:23

The ESV uses this phrase: the definite plan....
The NIV renders it as Gods deliberate plan
The NIV (1984) has it as God's set purpose
The NASB uses this description: predetermined plan

Are these translations speaking of determinism?
When this verse speaks of a plan, is it referring to the end result or does it include the details of the plan?

Since God is not the author of evil, can he use an evil deed (or over-ride its human purpose) to accomplish his intended result, which would be good? I'm thinking of Joseph. God described the brothers' intent to sell him into slavery as evil, but He meant it for good.

The ultimate example is the crucifixion, which Peter described in Acts 2:23 as having been done by "wicked hands." Yet it fit into God's eternal plan for the Son to be slain for sinners.

Further, David described the crucifixion in Psalm 22, written a thousand years earlier. He described a method of execution unheard of at the time. Could we say that God determined the means as well as the end?

I will admit that I can understand God's determining the date, place and method of the crucifixion, I concede that this was an evil deed by wicked hands, which Peter says clearly is part of God's "determinate counsel."

I also admit that I don't know how God's sovereignty and human will work together. Nor do I understand how God incorporates evil into his plan. But the scriptures say they do, and that's good enough for me.

 

This is just another attempt to marginalize me by trying to paint me outside the mainstream.

What you do is divide and conquer. If you can get other Cals to blacklist me then your task is much easier.

The fact of the matter is that you have been called on your HORRIFIC spinning of Edwards now by at least three of us. Your ability to create a rift between me and historic Calvinism weakens each time someone else notices that you don't get it.

You have also been challenged to provide those "quotes" by Bruce Ware with which my position on compatibalism is at odds.

I do not think you can do it- and I'll tell you why. I learned it MOSTLY from Bruce Ware.

MOST of what I have said to you along those lines for the past six months or so have been paraphrases of things I learned from him at conferences, in debates we've watched, videos we've watched and books he has written.

The more you try to do this, the more you injure your credibility- and that is the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to do. You are actually TRYING to injure mine- whether you are ever successful or not at that endeavor is up to the level of thoughtfulness of people who read your posts and mine. I am not responsible for that.


That I am harder than most is no secret. That MOST of my Calvinist brothers would season their words with a bit more grace than I do is without question.

But that we are all on the same page theologically is clear- no matter how hard you try to divide us.

 

once again with the wedge thing.

Historic Calvinism abandons this issue to the realm above the mental abilities of mortal man.

Yes, NOTHING happens that God did not purpose to happen. No real mainstream Calvinist would deny that. And that is all I have been saying from the start. I may be saying it much more bluntly and frankly than some would wish, but that the Westminster Confession and Calvin and Beza and Gill and Boice and Spurgeon and Pink and well nigh every reputable Calvinist on earth believes that is WITHOUT QUESTION.

At the same time man is free to choose to do whatever he wants to do at any given moment.

How all of that works together is just one of thousands of mysteries that are too great for us.

But that the Bible says they both happen is clear.

The Calvinist believes the Bible by faith on both issues.

The Arminian denies the sovereignty of God to preserve the freedom of man.