Non-Calvinists, why is your God so small?

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[QB]Just as we, as created beings, are responsible for our own sin, we, as created beings, are responsible for not spreading the message. God is not responsible for our sin (even though He created us) just as He is not responsible for our failure (even though He sent us).

Not to beat a dead horse, but it still seems to be breathing. Here I go again:

Yes, people who fail to evangelize are responsible to God for their sin. That does not absolve God for not choosing a means of evangelism that would NOT fail, thereby giving everyone equal exposure to his truth. If you want a fair God, you have to defend his fairness on ALL counts.

Does responsibility equal culpability? Why or why not?

Explain what you mean by culpability, because my answer depends on your definition.

Romans 2:11 would disagree. God is not a respecter of persons, and as such, is a fair God. Does justice not require the judge to be fair?

Romans 2:11 doesn't prove God is fair in the sense that you suggest. "God is no respecter of persons" proves that God doesn't base his choice on our merit. It in no way denies God's right to choose based on other grounds (such as his own sovereign pleasure incomprehensible to the human mind).

Do you have Biblical support to back up your statement that "God could not possibly be more glorified in the world that he created?"

Revelation 4:11 states that the purpose of all God's creation is his own pleasure. Earlier in the verse he is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power because of his creative acts. If God's stated purpose was to bring himself pleasure and ultimately glory, is it conceivable that God could have created a world that would have done a better job of it? If he could have, he failed to accomplish his own objective. The concept of God failing is incomprehensible to me.

I have found a number of other passages that are consistent with that view. I'll try to report on them tomorrow.

It's not about God working harder at all. How is his persuasion inconsistent? All that is required for fairness is one visit of the Holy Spirit.

Does every person receive the same level of persuasion, in both quality and quantity? If not, those who get less can claim if they got what someone else got they would have responded.

There is no more unfairness in this than in the fact that some people are gifted and others are not.

I thought God was no respecter of persons. Why are some gifted and not others? That doesn't seem fair. (I don't really believe that. I'm just using the argument to illustrate that God gifts some more than others according to his sovereign pleasure, just as he elects some and not others on the same grounds.)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But what about the Chinese who only heard it once and rejected compared to the Americans who heard it a thousand times and finally accepted? Why did the Americans get more of God's attention?

Because humans did a poor job of spreading the gospel message.</font>[/QUOTE]And it seems that God really blew it on the planning side by not devising a more reliable vehicle for his message, following that logic.

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:

For equality (as defined as all men having a chance to be saved) to be established, God needs only to truly invite a man once. The number of times that the chance is given need not be the same to establish such equality.

Ok, so you're going with the second statement. I still don't know what you meant in the first one or how the two reconcile with each other, but we can leave that alone since I know where you're coming from now.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
This is quite sad, indeed.

You find it sad that I would not presume to tell God who to save and who not to save? Do you honestly doubt for one moment that I want my children with me in heaven? Yet how could I have any confidence that it is even possible unless I can believe in God's promises? And how can I have confidence in God's promises if they can be thwarted by the free-will of man?

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Care to speculate on what that reason is? Or any reason why God would choose not to elect a person? This seems to be a crucial point.

IMO, it is THE crucial point if man has the temerity to assume he can judge God's reasons for doing anything.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It's not about submission. If His sovereign plan was to allow man a part in reaching the lost, then he is not submitting! Therefore, the "such that..." does not follow.

You seem to have no problem with God overriding man's free-will in order to reach the lost. I find that fascinating, because the anti-Calvinist often tries to prove Calvinism is dangerous by questioning why a Calvinist would be motivated to preach the word if Calvinism is true? But if, as you say, man does not need to be a part of reaching the lost, then the question applies to the free-will advocate, as well.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If the Bible said that's the way it works, maybe I'd give the possibility some consideration. But that's not at all what the Bible says.

God tells man to preach the gospel in the great commission. He commands man in Acts 1:8 to be witnesses to the entire world. It's in the Bible, right there. "How will they no if they do not hear?" It's there, too.</font>[/QUOTE]Here is the context of what I was saying:

I cannot rest assured that there is a good reason why a god would submit to the free-will of man such that a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved. If the Bible said that's the way it works, maybe I'd give the possibility some consideration. But that's not at all what the Bible says.

So if you are saying that -- "a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved" -- is really in the Bible, you are contradicting your earlier statement that God is sovereign over the hearing of His word. Please pick one or the other and tell me which it is you are saying.

 

[Sularis]

God gives everyone - one chance (at least) - WITHOUT the Gospel being preached to them by human agents - Our Commission is to go forth and give everyody multiple chances - because mankind is not only stubborn - but at times dumb

And to answer your question Ken(t) Hamilton
Yes

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Siegfried:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Does responsibility equal culpability? Why or why not?

Explain what you mean by culpability, because my answer depends on your definition.</font>[/QUOTE]Culpability means Deserving of blame.

Romans 2:11 doesn't prove God is fair in the sense that you suggest. "God is no respecter of persons" proves that God doesn't base his choice on our merit. It in no way denies God's right to choose based on other grounds (such as his own sovereign pleasure incomprehensible to the human mind).

I'm not sure where you get "choice." It's nowhere to be found. Read the chapter and tell me where you get this idea that it's talking about God not choosing based upon merit, or indeed, where choice is found at all.

Revelation 4:11 states that the purpose of all God's creation is his own pleasure. Earlier in the verse he is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power because of his creative acts. If God's stated purpose was to bring himself pleasure and ultimately glory, is it conceivable that God could have created a world that would have done a better job of it?

Sure. Why not? Remember, he does not delight in certain things - in other words, he does not take glory in these things.

Does every person receive the same level of persuasion, in both quality and quantity? If not, those who get less can claim if they got what someone else got they would have responded.

all that's required for fair is "once."

And it seems that God really blew it on the planning side by not devising a more reliable vehicle for his message, following that logic.

I'm sorry you see that way. Maybe you can take it up with Him in Heaven. Either way, the idea of the gospel being open to all men is much more "reliable" than that door being closed to the majority of humanity.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
So Scott, what are you doing sending people to hell? You need to be out there 24/7 winning everyone you can. I hope you like fast food.

If anyone goes to hell, it is the fault of people not preaching (or talking stars in Helen's theology). I don't expect to see you post anymore. If you do, people might go to hell because of it.

YOu want to see mud wrestling, Ken, try the above.

What talking stars, Preach?

Nor are we sending anyone to hell. God is in control of who He wants where. We are to obey Him and go only where He would have us go. For many of us, that means actually staying at home and ministering to neighbors. You see, salt is sprinkled -- for a reason.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
You find it sad that I would not presume to tell God who to save and who not to save?

Nah. Just sad that you believe God would actually choose NOT to save a person, knowing full and well what would happen to that person.

Do you honestly doubt for one moment that I want my children with me in heaven?

No. I believe that you do. What would happen if they are not elect?

Yet how could I have any confidence that it is even possible unless I can believe in God's promises?

Plenty of promises in the Word say that He came so that all men could be saved.

And how can I have confidence in God's promises if they can be thwarted by the free-will of man?

Thwarted? Who said anything about God's promises being thwarted? What if free will WAS part of God's promise?

IMO, it is THE crucial point if man has the temerity to assume he can judge God's reasons for doing anything.

So you have no idea. (Not asking you to judge or rebuke God - just if you had an idea.)

You seem to have no problem with God overriding man's free-will in order to reach the lost. I find that fascinating, because the anti-Calvinist often tries to prove Calvinism is dangerous by questioning why a Calvinist would be motivated to preach the word if Calvinism is true? But if, as you say, man does not need to be a part of reaching the lost, then the question applies to the free-will advocate, as well.

Where did I override man's freewill? God commands man to witness. Not doing so is a sin of man's own volition.

So if you are saying that -- "a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved" -- is really in the Bible, you are contradicting your earlier statement that God is sovereign over the hearing of His word. Please pick one or the other and tell me which it is you are saying.[/QB]

The quote above are your words, not mine. I never said nor implied such a thing.

Again, God tells man to preach the gospel in the great commission. He commands man in Acts 1:8 to be witnesses to the entire world. It's in the Bible, right there. "How will they know if they do not hear?" It's there, too.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Helen:
YOu want to see mud wrestling, Ken, try the above.

Helen, at times both sides are guilty spiritual mud wrestling. But because some engage in it, do we all have to stoop and dumb ourselves down to the lowest level?

Frankly, there are a lot of times when it is a shame to call this a "Christian" forum. Maybe all of the posts need to go through the moderators and be edited for content to get rid of the un-Christian junk.

Ken

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
You find it sad that I would not presume to tell God who to save and who not to save?

Nah. Just sad that you believe God would actually choose NOT to save a person, knowing full and well what would happen to that person.</font>[/QUOTE]I make two clay pots. One of them I deliberately make with a crack. Nobody else knows it has a crack and is essentially worthless, but I know, since I designed it that way. Why? Because I plan to place it below the good pot in a box. During travel, the truck hits a bump. The pot on top bounces on the bottom one. The bottom crack-pot gets destroyed, but in doing so, creates a cushion for the good pot, which is saved.

Since I am the potter, who are you to argue with me about how I planned to lose one pot and save the other? Neither will I argue with God as to how He forms one pot or another.

Do I think that's what God is doing with mankind? I have no idea. But that is the point -- I have no idea. So I am in no position to say that creating a person knowing that person will go to hell is a bad thing. I do not even presume to know the end from the beginning, let alone know it from God's perspective.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you honestly doubt for one moment that I want my children with me in heaven?

No. I believe that you do. What would happen if they are not elect?</font>[/QUOTE]Take a wild guess.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And how can I have confidence in God's promises if they can be thwarted by the free-will of man?

Thwarted? Who said anything about God's promises being thwarted? What if free will WAS part of God's promise?</font>[/QUOTE]When you can dig up that scripture, let me know.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So if you are saying that -- "a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved" -- is really in the Bible, you are contradicting your earlier statement that God is sovereign over the hearing of His word. Please pick one or the other and tell me which it is you are saying.

The quote above are your words, not mine. I never said nor implied such a thing.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I said that this idea ("a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved") was not in the Bible. You presented scripture as a counter, as if to say it was in the Bible. If that wasn't your point, what was it?

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Again, God tells man to preach the gospel in the great commission. He commands man in Acts 1:8 to be witnesses to the entire world. It's in the Bible, right there. "How will they know if they do not hear?" It's there, too.

Very good. Calvinists also point to those scriptures.

Now to get back to the point, do you believe people can be lost because someone chooses of their own free will not to preach the word to them? If so, then please say so. If not, then explain why not?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Since I am the potter, who are you to argue with me about how I planned to lose one pot and save the other? Neither will I argue with God as to how He forms one pot or another.

But read Jeremiah 18 to see that the potter actually has a choice in the matter!

When you can dig up that scripture, let me know.

With all the Scripture that states that man has a choice, it would seem to make sense that God wanted it that way.

I said that this idea ("a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved") was not in the Bible. You presented scripture as a counter, as if to say it was in the Bible. If that wasn't your point, what was it?

The Scripture merely stated what man's role in spreading the word was.

Now to get back to the point, do you believe people can be lost because someone chooses of their own free will not to preach the word to them? If so, then please say so. If not, then explain why not?

I believe that God, in his provision, will call another to do the work that the other has neglected.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Helen:
YOu want to see mud wrestling, Ken, try the above.

What talking stars, Preach?

Nor are we sending anyone to hell. God is in control of who He wants where. We are to obey Him and go only where He would have us go. For many of us, that means actually staying at home and ministering to neighbors. You see, salt is sprinkled -- for a reason.

Helen, a couple of quick points:

1. The arminian position demands that you are out soulwinning 24/7. If you aren't, people are going to hell because you are not witnessing to them.

The calvinist recognizes that God will definitely send preachers to reach his elect. You have no hope.

2. The talking stars comment was a reference to your christianized astrology.

3. You said that God is in control of who he wants where. I am pretty sure you didn't need me to point out the contradiction between that statement and everything else you say.

 

[Helen]

This is my last post on CvsA for awhile for a number of reasons.
1. My husband will finally be here two weeks from this morning and I want to be ready for him.

2. The holidays are upon us with all the attendant jobs.

3. I have made my points.

Now, in response to Preach's points in his last post here:

1. The arminian position demands that you are out soulwinning 24/7. If you aren't, people are going to hell because you are not witnessing to them.

First, I am not an arminian. Second, God deigns to use us, but certainly does not need us. The fact that He is willing to allow us to be partners in presenting the Gospel to people is a tremendous privilege, but God certainly knows better than to depend on us!

We read in John 2:24-25, "But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man."

Things haven't changed. We can trust God, but I'm quite sure He still knows better than to trust us! He will make sure, one way or another, that there is not a single adult sentient human being who cannot be led to Christ/the Promise one way or another with the truth that is revealed to him in his own life. God has never NEEDED us, Preach, even from the beginning. He has allowed us to help. That is an unbelievable privilege and one that has stunned me time after time as I see people respond to my husband in particular (no, I'm not proud of him! -- right... )

The calvinist recognizes that God will definitely send preachers to reach his elect. You have no hope.

As I have said before, are they still elect if the preachers will not go? Or is it impossible, in the Calvinist scheme of things, for anyone to do other than what the Lord commands? If the latter, you have presented men as robots, and that is both contrary to biblical teaching and my own experience with people.

2. The talking stars comment was a reference to your christianized astrology.

I still doubt that you have read that paper at all! Current astrology is a corruption of something far different. "The heavens declare the glory of God." And the glory of God is not simply that the stars twinkle and are pretty. He wrote the entire Gospel story in the zodiac. This was known to the ancients, as indicated by both Abraham and Paul. This is the primary reason for Paul's saying that men have no excuse because the two qualities about God they need to know -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been CLEARLY seen from what has been made. This Gospel in the Stars was presented by Dr. Henry Morris of ICR years ago. I first ran across it in his book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science." I was stunned, quite honestly, because I had no idea such an idea was even possible. Malcolm Bowden's research on star names, as well as my husband's research (before we were married) were a clincher for me. And, as Barry pointed out in his article on the Christmas Star, how did the magoi (it was the upper parliamentary house of Persia that came to see baby Jesus, by the way, not 'three wise men'. It's just that there were three types of gifts...) know and say "We have seen His star..."? They knew from Daniel's material from years before, when he was the head ASTROLOGER and wise man of the entire area. The two offices were combined because the corruption of astrology was not part of the reality of God's message. The corruption is demonic. But there could be no corruption without something real to corrupt. Evil is ALWAYS a reaction against something true and good. Without the good, it has no meaning, for it can't be evil if there is no good to compare it to. For instance, we could never say sleep was evil because there is no such thing as a person who doesn't sleep! That's a relatively simplistic example but I hope it gets the idea across. Astrology today is a massive and demonic corruption of something that was once true and good. But since the Incarnation, we have not needed anything else other than Christ Jesus, because now we know who He is and was and the fulfillment of the promise God had written in the skies themselves. PLEASE read the silly paper and see what is being shown before you accuse any of us of 'Christianized astrology' or whatever. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please, please get your head out of the sand. Here are the two articles with the research which supports what I have been saying and more:

http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/index.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html

Please stop criticizing out of your ignorance and know what you are talking about here. Thank you.

3. You said that God is in control of who he wants where. I am pretty sure you didn't need me to point out the contradiction between that statement and everything else you say.

There is no contradiction. Just because He gave us freedom to make choices and partner with Him in regards to other people does not mean He is not still in control. If you think being in control means you must dictate every detail of someone's thought processes and life, you are greatly mistaken. Even the electrons jitter, but they remain in the atom. There is a latitude of movement given by God to us that never threatens His control in the slightest.

[ November 21, 2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Helen:
There is no contradiction. Just because He gave us freedom to make choices and partner with Him in regards to other people does not mean He is not still in control. If you think being in control means you must dictate every detail of someone's thought processes and life, you are greatly mistaken. Even the electrons jitter, but they remain in the atom. There is a latitude of movement given by God to us that never threatens His control in the slightest.

That makes perfect sense: just becuase we are in control doesn't mean that God isn't in control. We are both in control. It is a partnership. That would be why Paul always referred to Jesus as the Partner Jesus Christ. It is sort of like the God is my co-pilot theology. Yeah, I get it now.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Helen:
Please, please get your head out of the sand.

It might surprise you, but I am very familiar with the christianized astrology you keep putting forth. I know that each of the zodiac signs supposedly represent something biblical. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I will address the issue in another forum now. Your statement that I am ignorant of the issue is laughable seeing how you wouldn't have the slightest idea what I know about it now would you?

 

[Helen]

I came in to read the above post to my husband as we were talking on the phone this morning and saw Preach's response. Good gravy. That is deliberate ignorance and mocking.

For anyone ELSE, think of a mother teaching her child to bake cookies if you like. The child is allowed to be a partner, but guess who is in control of all of it?

Jesus taught us to call God "Father" for a number of reasons, but that was one.

Preach, at some point you are going to have to quit with the verbal knee jerks and think before you respond. You cannot possibly be of help to anyone seeking the Lord with the kind of reactions you are showing.

God bless you all. I'm off.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
Since I am the potter, who are you to argue with me about how I planned to lose one pot and save the other? Neither will I argue with God as to how He forms one pot or another.

But read Jeremiah 18 to see that the potter actually has a choice in the matter!</font>[/QUOTE]Of course the potter has a choice in my example. The pot doesn't. I'm getting the feeling you're not even reading my posts.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />When you can dig up that scripture, let me know.

With all the Scripture that states that man has a choice, it would seem to make sense that God wanted it that way.

</font>[/QUOTE]Telling man to choose is one thing. Saying free will is one of God's promises is quite another. Show me the latter in scripture and you will have made your point. Otherwise you're just changing the subject.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Now to get back to the point, do you believe people can be lost because someone chooses of their own free will not to preach the word to them? If so, then please say so. If not, then explain why not?

I believe that God, in his provision, will call another to do the work that the other has neglected.</font>[/QUOTE]And if nobody answers "yes", then what? You still haven't answered the question. Is it possible that some will be lost due to man's free-will choice to disobey the call? How about a simple yes or no?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
It is sort of like the God is my co-pilot theology.

Is that where the more progresive "my god is a back seat driver" theology came from?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Helen:
For anyone ELSE, think of a mother teaching her child to bake cookies if you like. The child is allowed to be a partner, but guess who is in control of all of it?

And what does the mother do if the child chooses of his/her own free will to pour Liquid Plumber into the cookie mix? If you're willing to accept the fact that the mother is in control enough to prevent that (or at least prevent it from harming anyone), then I don't understand why you have such a problem with Calvinism.

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Culpability means Deserving of blame.

God is responsible for creating the world as it was created. I assume we can agree on that.

In my system God is to blame for creating the world with the intention of bringing maximum glory to himself through sin, the fall, redemption, and final victory. God would receive less glory if he created a world in which everyone always obeyed him. How is that the case? I will admit that I don't understand it all, because I realize I'm too small to understand how God thinks. My system contends that when we think God deserves blame, we really ought to recognize that God uses evil to accomplish greater good.

In your system God is to blame for creating a world with the capacity for evil. God chose not to do what he could have done to prevent it because he wanted men to have the freedom to choose.

The problem with your system is that it doesn't really absolve God of the blame for the existence of evil. Your view merely transfers the blame from one step in his plan/foreknowledge/decree, to
another step. Your view elevates the value of man's freedom above the value of God's glory.

All I can say is that I could not possibly disagree more on that point. God's creation is all about him, not all about us.

 

[Missionary to Germany]

Here is an idea. Could God really offer salvation FREE TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON?

I am a BIBLE believing Christian, who believes the Bible and takes IT for what IT says.

I do not see how you could live with your self after looking a person in their eyes and tell them that they could not be saved or even have the opportunity to be saved because they are not one of the "Elect."

I would much rather stand before MY LORD and Saviour at the Bema Seat and have many crowns to cast at His feet because I led MANY of the "Non-Elect" to Christ.

I John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

[ November 21, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Missionary to Germany ]