Randomness in the Bible?

[Luke2427]

So...if my theology is nameless, what do you call your agnostic, fatalistic, hyper-leaning mumbo jumbo? Surely not calvinism!

Welcome to the nameless theology crowd!:smilewinkgrin:

I have demonstrated to any thinking person's satisfaction that what I believe is perfectly consistent with the greatest minds in Calvinism's history. I can back up everything I believe in the Westminster Confession, The Baptist Confession of 1689, the words of Edwards, etc...

You cannot because you made up your theology.

You guys really ought to sit down and come up with a name for this stuff that ya'll made up.

"Non-cal" is a very poor thing to call oneself. It only identifies you with what you DO NOT believe... which come to think of it may be the sum and substance of your position- it is just based on what you DON'T want to believe.

But try to come up with a name for that stuff, will you?

 

[Van]

If God's providential will brings calamity upon the wise and foolish, the righteous and the wicked, how should we view it? Is God revealing a specific judgment against the babies who have done nothing good or bad? Or could God use our harsh environment to bring calamity so that we would turn to God as a refuge or cling to God in times of calamity, i.e. for some greater good and not some specific judgment of individuals. This would be like God using the evil of selling Joseph to bring a blessing to the world, Genesis 12:3.

Do things happen without specific purpose, but for God's greater purpose, in a creation subjected to futility? I think so. Thus things happen by chance and without specific intention on the part of God, but which God uses for His greater purpose, such as a Tsunomi, earthquate, hurricane or tornado. God is our refuge and upon this rock I stand.

 

[Luke2427]

Seems as if you are making the argument that any thing not under the direct agency of God's decree is "random." I think even Edwards and others would place some things under the permissive will of God...i.e. that which he allows, disposes events etc

Sorry, it just hard to understand since you still haven't defined the terms "ordain" or "decree" yet.

I will give you a definition for both of those terms the very moment you recognize that I already have in the best form available- the great creeds of the early Baptists and Presbyterians.

And I do not believe that ANYTHING happens by chance on God's part. I believe the Bible is extraordinarily clear that there is no such thing as chance in the eternal council halls of Almighty, all-knowing, immutable God.

Chance only exists in the realm of men. They may do something random but God has already determined both that it should be done and the outcome of it.

It is concurrence.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I will give you a definition for both of those terms the very moment you recognize that I already have in the best form available- the great creeds of the early Baptists and Presbyterians.

And I do not believe that ANYTHING happens by chance on God's part. I believe the Bible is extraordinarily clear that there is no such thing as chance in the eternal council halls of Almighty, all-knowing, immutable God.

Chance only exists in the realm of men. They may do something random but God has already determined both that it should be done and the outcome of it.

It is concurrence.

From this statement, if you really believe it, I do not see how you account for evil in the world without making God into an evil monster.

 

[Luke2427]

From this statement, if you really believe it, I do not see how you account for evil in the world without making God into an evil monster.

Would you like for me to explain?

 

[webdog]

But try to come up with a name for that stuff, will you?

Child of God works just fine for me. Notably, I didn't see the "name" of your theology anywhere, only that portions can be backed up with creeds of men.

Also...I didn't make it up, you are quite disingenuous in even suggesting that.

 

[webdog]

Would you like for me to explain?

Great...are you NOW doing to define decree and ordain for us?

 

[Skandelon]

Would you like for me to explain?

Oh, please let Edwards do it for you!!!


“They who object, that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, ‘the author of sin.’ I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant ‘the sinner, the agent,’ or ‘actor of sin,’ or ‘the doer of a wicked thing’; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin. [Luke, that would include saying that God is "'the doer of a wicked thing' but because it was for the right motive its not 'wicked.'"]

But if, by ‘the author of sin,’ is mean the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense). And, I do not deny, that God being thus the author of sin, follows from what I have laid down; and, I assert, that it equally follows from the doctrine which is maintained by most of the Arminian divines." -Jonathan Edwards

I've repeatedly asked Luke to define the terms decree/ordain because many of the definitions out there include within them the active and passive decrees of God by which God in the matter of good is active, but in the matter of evil is passive (permissive), which is the position Edwards and the Arminian Divines support here in this quote. Luke will not deal with these definitions or answer the question regarding God's permissive decrees.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Would you like for me to explain?

If I understood your belief correctly then absolutely nothing happens that God did not preordain and thus approve. That means God is responsible for all good that happens and also for all bad and evil that occurs in the world. If that is a person's belief that turns God into a merchant of evil.

That is why I ask that you elaborate on your statement.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Spurgeon is not the authority. The Gospel is salvation by grace through faith, not the theology that tries to explain it. It is mighty arrogant to claim absolute truth on the mechanics involved in salvation.

The bible teaches what it does and sound doctrine isn't arrogant. It is simply sound doctrine based on the scriptures and verified by the church. We know then by their fruits. Spurgeon has a lot of fruit.

 

[Skandelon]

The bible teaches what it does and sound doctrine isn't arrogant....

But as Piper notes here in this quote some of its adherents have a tendency to be...

"I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again."

- John Piper

 

[glfredrick]

But as Piper notes here in this quote some of its adherents have a tendency to be...

"I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again."

- John Piper

Yet, you, an AVOWED Arminian, may be one of the most argumentative persons on the board... :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

Yet, you, an AVOWED Arminian, may be one of the most argumentative persons on the board... :smilewinkgrin:

Takes one to know one. :thumbs:

I freely admit I was one of those types that Piper is speaking of; and that is one of the reasons I attempt to reason with Calvinists, who, like me, enjoy a rigorous discussion. But, I think my posts prove to be objective, on topic, and kind in most situations unless overtly provoked...

I would love to ask Piper some questions about this quote though...you know the whole cause for some believers becoming Calvinists while others reject it...

 

[Jerome]

"I admit that some called, Calvinists, are the most quarrelsome set breathing, this is the reason—while they have the main part of the Truth of God, many of them are leaving out something important—therefore God chastises them because they are some of His best children! It may be a sign of life that they are so eager after Truth that they kill one another in order to get it, but I wish they would leave off their quarrelling, for it is a disgrace to our religion. If they had more peace, I might hope better for the progress of Truth. Everyone says to me—“Look there at your Brothers and Sisters! I never saw such a set of cut-throats in my life! I never saw a Church where they have the Gospel, where they are not always falling out!” Well, that is near the truth and I am ashamed to confess it." —Charles Spurgeon, "The God of Peace"

 

[percho]

Trust me the Randomness of this world is order to God.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Jerome]

"It is one thing to believe in the doctrines of grace, but quite another thing to accept all the encrustations which have formed upon those doctrines, and also a very different matter to agree with the spirit which is apparent in some who profess to propagate the pure truth." —Charle Spurgeon, "Rivers of Water in a Dry Place"

 

[quantumfaith]

Child of God works just fine for me. Notably, I didn't see the "name" of your theology anywhere, only that portions can be backed up with creeds of men.

Also...I didn't make it up, you are quite disingenuous in even suggesting that.

Child of God... I like that. Heck I even still like Non-Cal. Interesting how even "Calvinism" et al did not exist until about 400 years ago, and how old is Christianity?

 

[webdog]

Yet, you, an AVOWED Arminian, may be one of the most argumentative persons on the board... :smilewinkgrin:

Don't forget that he was a calvinist at one point

 

[Robert Snow]

You have to cease just attacking an imaginary target that you label Calvinism. You specialize in making drive-by attacks as if that promotes something positive. But you are only embarrassing yourself and sinning in the process.

It's a good thing for me that you don't decide who is sinning or not. I would imagine the scripture about removing the plank in your own eye would apply to you in this instance.

I'm not attacking an imaginary target labeled Calvinism. I'm attacking Calvinism itself. Especially the part that says that God chooses who will or will not obey the Gospel. I attack it because it is not biblical. I also attack the part that says that those who God chooses have no choice in the matter. I attack this also because it goes directly against what the scripture teaches. If this bothers you, or your buddy Luke, there is nothing I can do.