OK Larry,
Yes, of course I read your responses.
Yes, first of all, I am a sincere lover of God. I am born again by the grace of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who is gradually pruning out the parts of me that are not a bit Christ-like and growing new bits that are. And slowly I am learning to hear Him more clearly and obey more completely.
You said that I was rejecting Scripture in rejecting the Reformed position. It is BECAUSE of Scripture that I reject the Reformed position, Larry. It is because I spent several years totally devoted to dealing with this one major issue that I am quite certain of what Scripture, in its totality, says. I do not hold my position lightly; I had to be sure, and I am sure.
You want me to apply the same criteria I use for Genesis to the rest of the Bible. I do. That is one reason I take the if/then sections seriously. God said what He meant and meant what He said. It is not God's will that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. His love covers every human being ever created; it's just that so many have preferred themselves over Him, and the pain that we must have caused Him through the ages is unfathomable. I can remember one time thinking about this and then having tears on my face and trying to apologize to Him in my heart for the whole human race! How great His love and patience and mercy must be to endure so many insults as we humans have thrown at Him! And how great His anger must be, building up for the final showdown.
Do you remember when Jesus was furious with the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Matthew 23? Do you remember how that chapter ends?
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
There is a will other than God's, which He respects, even to His own pain.
Yes, His work in our lives is supernatural in redemption. But it is something each of us is free to accept or reject. But the point I don't think you understand fully is that ALL of us had sin-sick minds before any of us was born again. Genesis 8:21. But it was not the utter depravity that Reformed theology teaches, but the TENDENCY toward evil. And tendencies can be resisted. That is the entire purpose of our legal structures in every society, and why we hold people accountable when they disobey laws. If laws were simply a matter of validating human nature, we would not need them, would we? But they go against our human nature and yet we are still - and rightly so - expected to obey them.
When I said that those who rejected truth did not actually hate God because they did not know Him, you referred me to Romans 1. Verse 21 refers to those who know God but do not worship Him as God. Before I deal directly with something in that verse, I would point you to Paul quoting the Psalms that "there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God." So what is Paul referring to in Romans 1:21?
Get your Concordance out and look up the word "knew" there. It is 'ginosko'. That word has a variety of meanings, but they center around 'to be aware of.' It actually is a follow-through of Paul's statement a few verses earlier when he says that God has structured creation in such a way that two of God's qualities are evident in it: His eternal power and His divine nature. These point to the necessity of a God as nothing less could have these qualities, and thus the reality of the existence of God is known by all men in their hearts. But, as Paul says, no one understands and no one seeks God.
So what is it they do seek? Many, like my father, seek the truth. They do not recognize it as the God of the Bible for some time, perhaps. But there are many people who really do want to now the truth and only later come to the understanding that what they were really seeking was answered in God Himself. But Jesus said that those who seek would find. The fact is that is a two-edged sword, though. It all depends on what a man seeks, and if he is seeking excuses and personal pleasure and such, what he finds will be where those lead, just as the man who wants the truth and wants to help others (and there are many besides Christians who want to help others!) will eventually find where that road leads: to Christ.
But, to return to the hate thing, they cannot hate God Himself at first, for they truly do not KNOW ('oida') Him. They have a knowledge OF Him, but do not KNOW Him. So they can hate the truth that is presented to them by God, and they can hate the necessity of a God, and they can hate the indications of a God, and they can hate those who represent God and in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, but I will still maintain that these hates are all 'once removed.' That is not to say that there will not come a time after time when their hate will find its true Target, but it is not yet.
Nor is being unable to please God (your reference to Romans 8) the same as hating God. Those for sure are two entirely different things.
And, actually, I kind of think you were arguing about the charity thing simply to be arguing. We were not saying anything different. I did not say that the charity shown by unsaved people was pleasing to God. I know Romans 8:8, too, as well as Isaiah 64:6 and the rest. What I did say was that it is very evident that all men have a concept of something called 'good', and that these acts of 'worldly' charity are clear evidence of that. It was part of my argument that spiritual death is NOT spiritual unconsciousness.
You said you 'totally rejected' my statement that "It is when the law is known and consciously rebelled against that the person dies spiritually and is separated from God.' If you reject that, then you are rejecting Romans 7:7-11, for all I was doing was paraphrasing that in line with John 17:3 and Jesus' definition of eternal life.
However you said in your next statement that "[Man] chooses to sin because of his nature." That is absolutely right. He CHOOSES to sin. A baby does not choose to sin. And it is not until he or she CAN make that conscious choice in line with whatever of the law is known that spiritual death can result. Please read Romans 7. This is EXACTLY what Paul is saying. This is also what I see daily in my profoundly retarded son. He is 17 with a barely measurable IQ of 19, yet he has a remarkably healthy body (he has eaten enough dirt to be immune to just about everything, I think!). Chris can drive me clear up the wall some days. He is an accomplished sneak when it comes to food and has an affinity for the Nature journals, which cost me an arm and a leg! But he does what he wants to simply because he wants to and it would be child abuse to actually hold him accountable for these actions. He has NO concept of 'law', and so it is incumbent upon us to make sure that his world is safe and 'legal' for him. There is a lock on the refrigerator and rubber bands around cabinet knobs. My journals are kept out of reach or with something on top of them so that he doesn't recognize them. The responsibility is mine. And if I, being the faulty and finite person I am, can recognize that much with my own child, how much more gracious is my Lord, from whom I have learned grace?
Why else do you think Jesus said so plainly in Matthew 18:10 that the angels of the little ones always see the face of God in heaven? The babes and people like Chris are simply not separated from God spiritually. What else do you think Paul was referring to when he says that without the law sin is dead, or that once he was live, APART FROM THE LAW. Read what he is saying there. He is so clear!
And I really do resent your statement that I get my theology from fairy tales. I think that was really uncalled for. I have spent a good part of my adult life studying other religions as well as the ancient mythologies and legends. I recommend to you Hislop's "Two Babylons" for a better understanding of what is actually going on in a lot of them. You will find it on the net here:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm
And it is when I looked at the one common thread running through ALL religions that I realized that there is only ONE common thread: man is not good enough the way he is. Every religion in the world including Christianity is predicated upon that simple fact. Confucianism, for example, does not reference any deity, but nevertheless gives people ways to improve themselves. And whether it is by joining this or saying that or partaking in some rite or doing certain good deeds or whatever, all religions except Christianity (and 'pure' Judaism) give man the responsibility for improving himself. It is only Christianity which tells the truth: man can't. God alone could and the good news is that He did. And it is the clear and distinct message of God in the Bible that ANY man (generic) who gives up trying to run his own life and/or improve himself and, acknowledging his own filthy heart turns to God for salvation will not be turned away. There were Egyptians with the Israelites in the OT and Greeks with the Jews in the NT.
Because God so loved the WORLD. Yes, He knew ahead of 'time' exactly what would happen. But this does not negate the freedom He gave each of us to accept or reject Him. Acceptance or rejection is NOT an action - it is a decision. God does everything else.
If you actually read what I am writing and don't just knee-jerk your reactions and insult my Bible study, I think you will see that in many places we are saying the exact same things. Our point of disagreement is primarily whether or not each man has the freedom to accept or reject God's work and person. I say yes and you say no. But in much of your response to me you are saying you disagree with me and then saying almost exactly the same thing I said!
You said you doubt I have ever read any reformed theologians. Excuse me, but I not only have read them but also interpreted for them in live conferences. I have a number of their books still in my library, which I have read. So please don't insult me and then ask me to read your material because you spent so much time on it. A deaf girlfriend and I spent an entire year going sentence by sentence through John MacArthur's
The Gospel According to Jesus and re-writing it into sign-compatible English. We met with Dr. MacArthur for reviews of what we had done and spent time with him discussing various issues. I have spent time with Dr. Sproul and read his material extensively as well as re-writing significant portions of it into sign-compatible English, including several years' worth of Tabletalk.
But what is more, I have read the Bible through cover to cover a number of times now. I have spent time digging through Concordances and following word usages. I have spent time with Dr. Bernard Northrup who teaches Greek and Hebrew and has for many years in Bible colleges.
I am not ignorant, Larry. I am not unread nor unstudied. I disagree with what you are presenting, but I am not insulting you or your understanding. I would appreciate it if you could refrain from insulting me.
You asked me, "Are you still witnessing to everyone you have ever talked to? Surely you walked away from people before. We have to sleep, eat, work, etc. I do not know the condition of anyone's heart., However, I can look at their life and see if what it says matches up with Scripture."
And I respond this way:
My witness is in my life, and I remain here for anyone I have ever talked to. As far as a person's life 'matching up with Scripture,' my assumption is that none of us really will until God has finished the good work He started in each of us. And until then I have simply been commanded to care (love) for each of those in my vicinity.
You closed by telling me I should consider what Scripture says rather than what I would like it to say.
Do you put everyone in a defensive position to see what they will say, or is it just me? Larry, I pray for understanding of His Word and the wisdom to live it and share it correctly. But aside from that, what interests me is the fact that I hear that basic phrase about "what Scripture says rather then what you would like it to say" from many Reformed followers. And it has occurred to me that for someone to use that criticism when what I have been doing is discussing Scripture itself might be indicating that there are a number of Reformed folk who are very uncomfortable with their positions. It must be very difficult to reconcile the idea of a God who defines Himself by the characteristics of love, mercy, forgiveness, and patience, among other things, with the idea that He nevertheless predestined the vast majority of humans who were created in His image to go to hell.
That, very simply, is not the God I know. It is not the God I read about in the Bible and it is not the God indwelling my heart. God is consistent and clear.
And we have a choice. That is His gift to us. Without it, we could never love Him back.
And, by the way, it would be downright silly and a waste of time to pray for God to save anyone in particular if it was already predestined ahead of time what their eternal fate would be. God does not change His mind…
