TWO QUESTIONS FOR CALVINISTS

Why didn't you leave, then, and spend some time with your family? </font>[/QUOTE]Do I really need to answer that question?

 

Hello whatever.

I agree with you as well that I go too far I do it on purpose. Not that I don't believe that but I say it. Saying it seems to be taking it too far.
What does Gill mean by saying that God finds something in us and confirms that in us? He knitted me together. Sounds like he is copping out.
The only way out for this is Adam. If he had free will but that still makles us incapable. That still leaves us without choice and created as such. Not that I mind I'm saved!

Hello JGrubbs.

Then Adam having free will means God is not Sovereign. It is choice.
Don't forget that some of the angels were elected to life which was not given before the fall to man and never to the fallen angels. Some of the angels were prevented from falling.

johnp.

 

That is a non-sequitur, because it discounts the logical possiblity that a Sovereign God can sovereignly decide to make creatures (angels and men) who have moral free choice and can sovereignly take into account these moral free choices in governing His creation.

If God has so sovereignly chosen to exercise His providence in this way, then, who are you, O man, to argue against Him?

So what does the Scriptures say? Again I'll cite the passage in Jeremiah 18 (this time adding the first 5 verses) since it employs the same potter-clay illustration in Romans 9 that Calvinists are fond of interpreting in their favor:

**The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear my words."

Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. And the vessel that he was making of clay was marred in the hand of the potter, so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:

"O house of Israel, can I not to with you as this potter?", says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand so are you in my hand, O house of Israel? The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Now speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, 'Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way and make your ways and your doings good."'" (Jeremiah 18:1-11)**

So we can see that from this illustration God is certainly sovereign, but in His sovereignty He takes into account the moral choices of His creatures in sovereignly determining their final outcome. Also notice the status of the clay is fluid or dynamic, that if the clay is a certain way at one point (ex: marred) he can re-fashion it into something else. The converse is also true. At the end of the passage God tells Israel He is "fashioning" disaster for them, but whether or not this actualizes is contingent on whether or not they repent.

Of course, God knows the final outcome--which vessels will ultimately be for noble purposes and which ones will be fitted for destruction. However, this illustration shows that "Sovereignty" does not equal "monergism". Therefore one cannot necessarily prove monergism from Romans 9 simply because it (correctly) illustrates the God is sovereign over His creation.

 

Hi Doubting Thomas;
Are you sure you chose your pin name correctly? The reason I ask is that you don't seem to doubt what you just stated, very well I might add.
Excellent post.
Amen
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

Excellent DT.

 

Why didn't you leave, then, and spend some time with your family? </font>[/QUOTE]Do I really need to answer that question? </font>[/QUOTE]I think I know the answer. You had a desire to go home, but you had a stronger desire to keep your job. Correct?

 

No, Whatever, It was my will to obey the scriptures that teach us to take care of our responsibilities, and, by working for someone else who is willing to pay me hansomely for my skills and expertise I stayed at work despite my desire to be at home with my family.

Later on this summer, I will stop working for a while and take my family with me to enjoy my desires!

 

So you obeyed the scriptures even though you didn't want to?

 

Well, Yes! I did for the preservation of my family, and in Obedience to God who commands that we do so!

 

Quite simple. Israel received the Law (the Pentateuch), whereas the other nations did not.) This is not a "salvation" passage, but a blessing one that is specifically talking about the Law that was given to the Jews. I send you to Matthew Henry's commentary here.

Otherwise, you have a problem as well, since "mishpat" literally means "judgements." There are several times (including Isaiah 34:5) that shows that God's judgement came down upon those who were definitely not part of Israel.

 

Soory ScottEmerson I've missed this.
I'll get back to this tomorrow.

Otherwise, you have a problem as well, since "mishpat" literally means "judgements." There are several times (including Isaiah 34:5) that shows that God's judgement came down upon those who were definitely not part of Israel.

You seem to be arguing my case.

johnp.

 

Scriptures indicate that grudging obedience is really disobedience. Either way, you had a desire to stay and work in order to preserve your family, and in order to obey God, and that desire was stronger than your desire to leave work and spend time with your family.

 

Adam's sin was not caused by God but simply permitted. There is absolutely no support in scripture for any view that would have God as the author of sin, or of temptation for that matter. Look at the story of Job. This shows very clearly how God permits Satan to operate in the world and to tempt us as he tempted Adam. This does not make God the author of sin only one who permits it to take place. Adam had been made in the image of God and was capable of making choices. Adam chose to give in to the temptation. By this all men inherited the sinful nature and are guilty before God. It is only by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we can be reconciled to God because of His righteousness, not ours.

God does permit Satan to tempt us but that is not the same as causing us to sin. He does provide a way out of the temptation to the Christian. It is to our shame that we don't always take that way out.

Yes, Christians sin. Yes, God forgives. The temptation appeals to us because of our sinful nature. For those who say we are not born in sin, I would ask the following:

Who teaches a baby to be demanding and self-centered? (What else is crying at every need or denied desire)

Who ever teaches a child to lie or cheat, or rebel against it's parents?

In yourself, how easy is it to adopt a bad habit? How hard to adopt a good habit?

These are just a few evidences that I see of the sin nature that infects us all. Man is incapable of living a sinless life. Only Jesus was able to do this and only because He is God.

God is sovereign, but that does not mean that he is the author of sin. Sin entered his perfect creation and must in the end be eliminated. It is to God's glory that He has provided for all of our needs in escaping the curse of sin through Christ Jesus.

 

Hello ScottEmerson.

You post this from me.
PS 147:19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.
If you don't agree to my interpretation then how do you reconcile Ps 147 and Ninevah?

You replied;

Quite simple. Israel received the Law (the Pentateuch), whereas the other nations did not.
That is what I was saying. That God decided to leave the other nations without His law thus condemning them to Hell without a chance to repent because without the law there can be no route to Christ. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:24.
This is not a "salvation" passage, but a blessing one that is specifically talking about the Law that was given to the Jews. I send you to Matthew Henry's commentary here.

Matthew Henry! Why? Have you become a Calvinist?
This passage? PS 147:19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.
The Psalm is a Psalm of praise to the Lord for the way He hedges Israel around.

Otherwise, you have a problem as well, since "mishpat" literally means "judgements."
Where's the 'otherwise' coming from? I'll take your word and Matt's on "mishpat".
There are several times (including Isaiah 34:5) that shows that God's judgement came down upon those who were definitely not part of Israel.
Like I said, you seem to be arguing my case. Since God's judgements are based on law and since the nations, that you affirm are judged, are judge even though they have not received the law then it seems obvious to me that those nations free will choices were not in existence. They were dispatched without warning. Is that not so?

Israel, the type, is not the same as true Israel. What is said to the type often has a direct bearing on the Church which is Israel. Not only will there be a need to be wary of Jacob and Esau, as two people or two groups, two nations, we have to keep in mind that there are two Israels, both infected by those who are not truly Israel.
This might cause some to fall into error without realising it. Say someone said that Jacob and Esau, as featured in Romans nine, was meant to represent nations! What a mistake! This would be like saying God loves Israel but hates the world. But I believe this because He does only love the Church. True Israel. So if this veres, Jacob I loved Esau I hated, means the two people then we see that it is in regard to election. One man over another for election and reprobation. If Jacob means Israel the type and then that proves election for Israel over Esau's lot. Esau's lot were hated as a nation before it was born. If Jacob means True Israel then it means that God hates the world as I have already said. Does that make any sense? It a winner all ways round for True Israel.

Romans nine is a passage about God's Sovereignty in election. We do not need to question the word unless we wish it was not involved. Election means selecting and it means choosing. In this case Divine choice; specifically : predestination of individuals as objects of divine mercy and salvation. That is what election means.
We go to the polls soon. The Prime Minister is up for reelection. I will be voting for Blair. I will not be voting for Blair because Blair is already the winner. If that was the case then I would sit at home because the object of my desire, a socialist government, does not need me to vote for him.
I hear you do things differently in the States! I hear tales that a man does elect himself. This is not the meaning of election as you well know from the fuss over Bush though it is often stated as if it was election by dictators.
But then the Prime Minister is already either in or out as it is God that does the voting. Romans 13:1.

What do you think of this ScottEmerson. I know it is a bit rambling and I can't seem to get to grips with this bit of the thread.
Tell me. Aolf Hitler, he was put into position and removed by God was he not? Romans 13:1. God ruled that Adolf should come to power knowing that within a short space of time tens of millions would be dead and Europe devastated.
Is He such a gracious God that He refuses to interfer with man's will to this extent and still says He is a Good God and a Good Shepherd? That He allows a handful of men to interfer with the lives of thousands of millions at their pleasure? That He sits back while we get on with it? Strange you should find that more acceptable to His winnowing fork in His Hands.

johnp.

 

Yes, let's look at Job. Job clearly says that it was God who gave him all of his livestock and all of his children, and that it was God who took them away. Job does not say that God permitted the taking of all that he had. Job says that it was God who took it all. And, the Bible clearly says that what Job was correct to say so.

So, why should we not say the same of God? Why must we stop at simple permission?

 

Would you make God the author of evil? Satan clearly asked God's permission to attack Job. That is explained in the beginning of the book of Job. The statement of Job, that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away was a correct statement as God is the ruler of all. God gave that permission knowing what Satan would do, and in that way He did take them away.

It is also a lesson for us to remember that all that we have, we have because of God's grace and from His hand. If He chooses to take it away, I hope we can all respond as Job did, saying "blessed be the name of the Lord".

God brings evil to people as punishment or correction, but always for righteous purposes. This is also clear in many examples given in scripture.

 

Hello Dave.

Would you make God the author of evil?
That is not really an answer to the question Dave. Why is it all right for God to give permission and not do it Himself?
Job knew where the problem was coming from, "JOB 7:17 "What is man that you make so much of him, that you give him so much attention, 18 that you examine him every morning and test him every moment? 19 Will you never look away from me, or let me alone even for an instant?

How are God's hands not dirty?

JOB 2:10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
All we have comes from God's hands. The good and the bad.

I would.

johnp.

 

John,
Be careful here. I would agree but with differant language for extremely important reasons. The problem is "evil". As man sees it, evil is a desciption from HIS POINT OF VIEW because he can only view it with his thought AND INTENTS! In theology the law of concurrance clears this up. Unfortunately people start talking about this problem before they study it and use terms that aren't properly defined. Evil is a adjective that describes an "Ungodly intent". Thus God would be defining Himself out of existance if He did "Evil".

The beauty of concurrance is what we have to study further... An action ordained by God ALWAYS HAS TWO perspectives! Man's and God's. Man's is always evil and God's ALWAYS GOOD!! An evil act, for example: Killing the Son of God was an unspeakable, most evil thing that has ever happened, but yet God orchastrated the whole thing! His reasons and purpose has NOTHING to do with mans pursposes or reasons. His intent was UTMOST Holy and pure. THE SAME EVENT !

So evil is always done by and intended by man and thus called evil, but the same act is just,pure and holy because of the intent of God.

 

Hi JohnP;

You would accuse God. You believe God makes you sin. You believe you are saved because he just saves you, no reason. Have you ever confessed Jesus Christ? or don't you think it necessary.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike