T.U.L.I.P.?

[Eric B]

God's sovereignty is not determined by whether or not you think something is fair. And God's sovereignty cannot be interpreted in such a way that would contradict his other revelation. You have subjected the sovereignty of God to something that your mind is willing to live with rather than accepting the revelation of God about the matter.

IMHO, "doing whatever He pleases" means "doing whatever He pleases." "Whatever He pleases" is ALWAYS perfectly in line with His Holy character. So who am I to question?

Calvinism is a Theocentric worldview. It recognizes (in the current words of S.C. Chapman) God is God and I am not. It understands that all of God's revelation is about God and not about us, and his eternal purpose is to glorify himself and not us. We are the beneficiaries of his own self-glorification by being redeemed by the great Redeemer, so all honor and glory go to him and we have nothing to brag about on our own.

Salvation is by God's grace, through his gift of faith to the elect, and not a faith we self-generate. God is holy and righteous and above the judgments of man, how man thinks God should be or act

All of this assumes then that because something is not fair (but benefits me over others), then it must be from God. When it is shown that scripture contradicts the notion of God getting pleasure of "glory" from creating people for Hell (whether you call it that or not), and how scriptures have to be twisted to support this (Ron 9, faith-as-"gift"), and more unclear scriptures that seem to teach this favored over clearer scriptures that deny it, old cliche's about people's beliefs are rehashed (controlling God, saving self, not letting God be God, [and like WHOEVER SAID God's revelation was about us or not about Him???] etc); and then threads are closed, (and in the past censorship sometimes even threatened), then it becomes clear that even though you all can speak these bold words, your conclusions are not that scripturally defensible as you try to project. These are all defense mechanisms used by those who have crossed a line into the unknowable things of God (His foreknowledge, prescience, eternal decrees, how this interacts with time, etc), and have spoken of things too wonderful for any of us. (Job 42)
Just admit this, and that your leaders may have been wrong, instead of trying to accuse others of practically rejecting God. (If all this stuff you say about our views is true, then Outside the Camp, and the Briders must be right!)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Eric, you are pushing the envelope here. IF you want to discuss issues then do it. If you want to whine about the way the board is run or about how other people treat you or your ideas, then do it elsewhere. There has been no censorship threatened anywhere in this section for ideas. There may have been for manner or tone but never for ideas. There was a clear reason for the thread that was closed along with ample warning that it would be closed. When you get to be a moderator, then you can run it as you see fit. Until then you can play by the rules here. You might need to take a break and sit back a little and then get back to ideas and issues. Do not continue in your negativity.

All of this assumes then that because something is not fair (but benefits me over others), then it must be from God.

This does not make a lot of sense. I don't follow you here. Please show a verse that defines fairness the way that you would like it to be defined.

When it is shown that scripture contradicts the notion of God getting pleasure of "glory" from creating people for Hell (whether you call it that or not), and how scriptures have to be twisted to support this (Ron 9, faith-as-"gift"), and more unclear scriptures that seem to teach this favored over clearer scriptures that deny it, old cliche's about people's beliefs are rehashed (controlling God, saving self, not letting God be God, [and like WHOEVER SAID God's revelation was about us or not about Him???] etc); and then threads are closed, (and in the past censorship sometimes even threatened), then it becomes clear that even though you all can speak these bold words, your conclusions are not that scripturally defensible as you try to project.

I haven't seen this Scripture that speak of here. Please show it and let's discuss it.

These are all defense mechanisms used by those who have crossed a line into the unknowable things of God (His foreknowledge, prescience, eternal decrees, how this interacts with time, etc), and have spoken of things too wonderful for any of us. (Job 42)

There are many things to wonderful for us but I am wondering why you do not put yourself in this category. God has revealed some things very clearly - that all people deserve hell, that he elects some for salvation, that not all are saved, that he is in sovereign control of all things. We are willing to accept this things and allow some tensions. YOu are the one who think you have it all figured out and are not willing to accept the tension, for instance, with how God can be fair if salvation is not equally available to all.

 

[Eric B]

I am the one who puts myself in that category, and do not claim to have it all figured out. (as in the "questions I did not answer" on other threads)

Let's see who'se trying to figure it out:
•God is in control of everything
•Christ's propitiation was effective
•Everyone is not getting saved
Conclusion: God must be decreeing that people remain unsaved and go to Hell.

It's not the scripture that "says" this; it is our own limited reasoning and deduction based on certain things we read in (and also into scripture.
God or the scripture never asks us to make such deductions. Just like God being "three" and "one" and Jesus being "God" and "man", (examples of your "tensions") we should admit that how it exactly fits together is beyond us. I say this from the beginning. Your side tries to posit some "hard truth" as an absolute conclusion, and then claim "it's above us" when the rest of the arguments have no effect. But you've already gone too far at that point. You're doing the right thing at the wrong time/place.

for instance, with how God can be fair if salvation is not equally available to all.

You are still taking the objection from the wrong angle. It's not why salvation is not offered to all; it's why God would create people he doesn't want to save. Does he like damning people? This is more than just some doctrine people don't like; it is a profound statement about God and His purpose, and it must be questioned as to it's real scriptural validity as like anuything else.

I haven't seen this Scripture that speak of here. Please show it and let's discuss it.

Ezekiel 33:11 teaches God does not delight (gets no pleasure) in the death of the wicked. The "answers" I've seen to this goes way off scripture to for all good purposes split God into two opposing wills to fit the other interpretations, and then forget the passage was ever mentioned and claim we have given no scripture at all. There are many other principles you can glean from the Bible to prove God is not trying to fill Hell; it's often more than simply throwing verses that supposedly "say" something, (because these can still be misread) but the one above should suffice.

Connected with this

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this assumes then that because something is not fair (but benefits me over others), then it must be from God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not make a lot of sense. I don't follow you here. Please show a verse that defines fairness the way that you would like it to be defined.

What I was trying to say is that your argument seems to be we believe something just because it seems fair, as if that was the biggest case against it, and as if the fact that yours transcends our notions of fairness proves it must be from God. Yes, God could hypothetically create people destined for Hell with no way out, (the "individual""vessels of wrath") and still be "right" or "just" (because He determines these attributes), but suppositions about His "prerogatives" mean nothing if they don't square with the total revelation (not just isolated passages taken and having some meaning forced into them). Just about all of you have said "God cannot lie", but under your line of reasoning, "who are you to say what He can't do?" "That's your idea of what's right", and scriptures could even be cited to support this, (God "deceiving" someone, "hardening"* people against His truth, etc.) while "God is not a man that he should lie" could equally be rationalized away.

*This also reminds me: somewhere you have accused us of portraying your view as "God is refusing Heaven to people who want to go", when you really believe people don't want to go, and God lets them continue on their path. Yet, you use Rom.9 like everyone else, and this "hardening" concept in the context you are applying it to assumes just what you think we are portraying your view as saying. (Why would God have to "harden" someone if He is just "letting" them go the already evil way they want?) This is another major strike against the "individual" interpretation of that passage

I apologize for my tone these past couple of days, but I felt you and some others were saying some inflammatory things about my position, which I have discussed elsewhere. You say I'm just "whining", but I feel the need to defend my position when I feel it is being unfairly characterized, just like you do. I have also apologized for thinking you closed down a thread with a wrong motive.