Five Effects of seeing God as personal rather than absolutistic

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Is that a warning to us as a Moderator or as a brother in Christ? I'm new here an wondering if people get banished or threads shut down if the moderator decides the thread has slipped into heresy...

Both. This is a board for orthodox Christianity. Those who depart from it are not welcome to post here. I do allow a great variety of opinions. However, I do not allow all opinions. For instance, when someone espoused baptismal regeneration, they were no longer allowed to post here.</font>[/QUOTE]Who is the judge of what is orthodox? What is your criteria?!?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Who is the judge of what is orthodox?

Scripture.

What is your criteria?!?

Does it conform to what has traditionally been held by some branch of orthodox theology.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

"Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full" (John 16:24)

If you do not pray and do not have full joy it is not because God predestinated you not to pray. It's your own fault, and nobody is to blame but YOU. Jesus was not an Absolute Predestinarian or else He would not have made such statements. God gave us commandments to FOLLOW. He meant for is people to FOLLOW them, not for Hi to follow them for us.

 

[Odemus]

I've always wondered how one can call God sovereign and then turn around and ascribe any amount of free will on the part of man.

I consider this to be an excellent definition of God taken from 'The Larger Westminster Catechism':

God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

If that is the God we worship (it is the one I worship) then I am looking at a being who is without question fully sovereign.

You cannot on one hand Consider God to be infinite in all of His attributes and on the other not absolutely sure of every detail of His creation.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Odemus:
I've always wondered how one can call God sovereign and then turn around and ascribe any amount of free will on the part of man.

I consider this to be an excellent definition of God taken from 'The Larger Westminster Catechism':

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

If that is the God we worship (it is the one I worship) then I am looking at a being who is without question fully sovereign.

You cannot on one hand Consider God to be infinite in all of His attributes and on the other not absolutely sure of every detail of His creation.</font>[/QUOTE]So, then, Odemus - does that make God responsible for evil?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Who is the judge of what is orthodox?

Scripture.

What is your criteria?!?

Does it conform to what has traditionally been held by some branch of orthodox theology.</font>[/QUOTE]So was the Augustianian theology orthodox, since it wasn't really held by any Christian theologian since then? Is Arminian theology orthodox? Is Pelagianism? Is Hyper-Calvinism? Is Process Theism? Is Open View Theology?

 

[Odemus]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
So, then, Odemus - does that make God responsible for evil?

No, how could it?

 

[KenH]

Scott,

Do you believe that God is ever surprised by what happens on earth?

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
So was the Augustianian theology orthodox, since it wasn't really held by any Christian theologian since then?

The good parts of Augustinian theology has developed into Calvinistic theology. Certain parts (e.g. sacraments) were followed by the Catholic church in its departure from biblical teaching. In the main, Augustinian/Calvinism has been traditionally held by a large part of orthodox Christianity.

Is Arminian theology orthodox?

It has been held by a smaller number of orthodox Christianity. Like Calvinism and Augustinianism, Arminianism took some of the more lucid parts of Pelagianism and developed them further. For instance, where Pelagianism denied original sin and the sin nature, Arminianism affirmed it and chose to follow a scheme of prevenient grace.

Is Pelagianism?

Not orthodox and generally will not be tolerated if a person is clearly pelagian.

Is Hyper-Calvinism?

Depends on how you define this. "Hyper Calvinism" is generally someone who is more calvnistic than the person using the term. I consider some of the primitive hyper calvinists. Because they are Baptists, I generally will not ban these unless their demeanor gets out of hand. Their problem is that they come very close (if not cross the line) of salvation apart from faith in Christ.

Is Process Theism?

Unorthodox

Is Open View Theology?

Unorthodox. These last two have never been held by orthodox theology and they involve the denial of the character and attributes of God.

As a whole on these issues of framework of belief, I am a bit more flexible than some other issues. For instance, if someone asserts something as baptismal regeneration or some other type of sacramental salvation, they will not be allowed to post here. They will have to go to the "other religions" forum. However, let us turn this discussion back to its original intent, "Five Effects of seeing God as personal rather than absolutistic." If you have other issues, send me a PM. I will be glad to address them with you.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Scott,

Do you believe that God is ever surprised by what happens on earth?

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

Surprised? No.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Odemus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
So, then, Odemus - does that make God responsible for evil?

No, how could it?</font>[/QUOTE]You stated that: "I've always wondered how one can call God sovereign and then turn around and ascribe any amount of free will on the part of man."

If God is sovereign, and man has no free will, then God must be the primary cause of evil.

 

[Odemus]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:


If God is sovereign, and man has no free will, then God must be the primary cause of evil.

You're going to have to do better than just saying that.Please explain how you come to that conclusion.

[ June 23, 2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Odemus ]

 

[Primitive Baptist]

God is not taken by surprise by any event. He has declared the end from the beginning. However, to say God makes people sin (denied by its advocates) is sort of out of line with some texts in the Bible. For example:

"And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?" (Jer. 7:10)

Here God clearly states that He did NOT lead them to do those things. This would be something that wasn't "predestinated" now wouldn't it?

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." (Jer. 7:31)

See there. God commanded them NOT to do it, but they done it anyway. God said, "...neither came it into my heart." To say it did is to make God a liar because He said it did NOT. Now, this action did not take God by surprise because He knew what they were going to do. Absolute Predestinarians deny that their doctrine teaches God makes people sin because that is exactly what it teaches. If God "predestinated" you to sin, you will sin. If He did not "predestinate" it, you will not. There is no way around it. Elder R. H. Pittman said it right when He said that absolutism, when ran to its logical conlusion, is nothing more than fatalism.

"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." (Is. 1:19, 20)

I thought you all taught that God makes people obey or rebel against Him...

"So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels. Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! (Ps. 81:12, 13)

It would be just rediculous to say that God predestinated them to rebel against Him when He says right there, "Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!"

"Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you." (Jer. 5:25)

I suppose that God predestinated some of His people to work iniquity so good things would be witholden from them. According to Jesus, it's YOUR fault if you don't have full joy: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." (John 16:24) If YOU don't ask, YOU don't receive. I guess if He predestinated you to ask, you will ask. This doctrine just goes in circles.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If God is sovereign, and man has no free will, then God must be the primary cause of evil.

If God did not cause Satan to fall into sin or cause Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, then God is not the cause of evil.

On this free will issue, Scott, do you think that man comes into the world unaffected in his nature by the Fall in the Garden of Eden? I believe man's nature was affected by it. And because of this, I believe it to be more accurate to say that man is morally responsible than to say he has free will.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

[russell55]

Here God clearly states that He did NOT lead them to do those things. This would be something that wasn't "predestinated" now wouldn't it?

It depends upon what definition you are using for the word predestine. It seems that many people think that "predestine" can only be used for those things God actively works. In that sense, the word "predestinate" can only be used for things that are worked by the agency of the Spirit, and could never be used for anything sinful or immoral.

I don't think, however, that this is a really accurate definition of the word, nor is it the definition used in scripture. I think a more accurate definition would be "settled beforehand." In this sense of the word, everything that happens is predestined, since because of God's foreknowledge and omnipotence, He surely foresaw everything and could have changed anything that He desired to. By not causing things to occur differently, He, in effect, said beforehand, "This is the way it will be". According to this definition of the word, He predestined all that is.

I believe that one of the things God is doing during every moment of creation is restraining evil. Things would be a whole lot worse if He wasn't doing this. Whenever evil happens, it isn't because God couldn't have restrained it, or didn't see it coming, but because He decided, in that particular case, to allow the evil to occur. By choosing to withhold His restraining hand, God settles beforehand the occurance of that evil (or He predestines it), even though He did not lead anyone to do the evil deed.

[ June 23, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Odemus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:


If God is sovereign, and man has no free will, then God must be the primary cause of evil.

You're going to have to do better than just saying that.Please explain how you come to that conclusion.</font>[/QUOTE]If part of God's nature is that He is in control of all things - thus being there is no free will in any created being - then part of evil must have been created by God. God is therefore the primary cause of evil.

Simple logic.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
If God did not cause Satan to fall into sin or cause Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, then God is not the cause of evil.

That's just it. If we follow the Calvinist definition of sovereignty, even Satan's falling and man's eating of the fruit, was planned and ordained that way. There is, therefore, no free will.

On this free will issue, Scott, do you think that man comes into the world unaffected in his nature by the Fall in the Garden of Eden? I believe man's nature was affected by it. And because of this, I believe it to be more accurate to say that man is morally responsible than to say he has free will.

Absolutely not. Man comes in a fallen creature. He is incapable of doing any good for God. Man is responsible for his heart - however, in both the old and new covenant, there are ways of exercising that free will. The free will is choosing the way up, not the circumstance. (For example, if I was born into abject poverty, but a person offered me a mansion to live in, I have free will about whether to accept that gift, but not where I came from.)

 

[Odemus]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If part of God's nature is that He is in control of all things - thus being there is no free will in any created being - then part of evil must have been created by God. God is therefore the primary cause of evil.
Simple logic.

Free will is unable to answer the question of original sin as well.Even assuming that Lucifer had a choice as to whether or not to rebel against God, it still doesn't answer the question of where that sin originated or how God could have created something perfect with the ability to sin. Harmonizing God's sovereignty with man's accountability will always pose somewhat of a paradox because we are finite and he is infinite.

Bottom line Romans 6:17,18

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of riteousness.

It's one or the other Scott, that's what the Bible teaches. Free will is an illusion.

 

[Daniel David]

Not only is freewill an illusion, but a picture of the word should be found on a milk box or something.

Scott, show me the New Testament passages that demand that freewill exists. You cannot use verses that mention the offer of salvation as support.

I married a girl named Ruth. I set my love on her from among other girls and chose to marry her. Why can't the Father do the same for His Son?

I desired to marry - God desires to save.

I actually married the one I had a special love for - God actually saves those who He has a special love for.

Election is everywhere and you cannot escape its reality. I submit that your problem is with submission to the authority of God. Once you settle this, you will post with a different tone.

[ June 24, 2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
That's just it. If we follow the Calvinist definition of sovereignty, even Satan's falling and man's eating of the fruit, was planned and ordained that way. There is, therefore, no free will.

An supralapsarian would agree with you there. We infralapsarians do not.

Man comes in a fallen creature. He is incapable of doing any good for God.

Yet you still insist that man can do spiritual good by repenting and believing without God giving him new life first. That is illogical.

Why do you cling so tightly to the idea that you must have free will? Why not just trust God to give you a new nature to repent and believe without claiming you made the decision on your own to repent and believe? And why would you repent and believe and Joe Blow sitting next to you at work not repent and believe without that meaning that you were "better" in some way naturally than Joe Blow?

Trusting in Christ alone,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

[ June 24, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]