What UNIQUELY sets apart a 'work of God' from every other common event in history?

[Yeshua1]

BIG problem in this OP is that we are trying to reason how/why God works and does His things, and some of this we have to just accept by faith from the bible, and some of it is hidden from us at this time!

 

[Skandelon]

Sin is allowed by God- it is not brought to pass by his direct agency.

That is what Willis and I BOTH believe, if I understand him correctly.

I believe that too Luke, and if that is all you ever said about what you believe we wouldn't be having this discussion, but alas we all can read what you actually said.

BOTH/AND vesus EITHER/OR

Every Christian views some passage in a way in which the majority of people in his circle do not.

How does this relate to your false claim that Willis is closer to you than me on this subject when your views (both/and) contradict his view and my view (Either/Or)?

And, as I say above, this is all you have left.

It's all I need with the lack of substance you are providing.

I really am not hurt.

Good to know, so I guess I'm now free to say what I was thinking?

Luke, if you think I feel defeated by your new found, unsubstantiated, undocumented small minded fledging of a dogma, which you honestly appeared to be coming up with on the spot, you are only fooling yourself...and doubtfully even doing that very well because you are smart enough to know there is not a scholarly Calvinist in the world who has made the claims you have made (I know because you would have quoted them and gloated about it by now).

You deny Calvinism's doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace by suggesting that the gospel, if not hidden by parables, might bring a non-elect man to saving faith. A view I actually agree with, but a view that couldn't possibly be consistent with major tenets of the Reformed doctrine, which you still claim to affirm. I point this fact out to you a dozen different ways and you dismiss them as 'emotive,' or irrational and throw out every red herring known to man. I point out in great detail that other scholars from your Reformed camp don't approach these texts in the manner you have or in such a way as to contradict two of their foundational doctrines.

And Luke, what do you do? Instead of dealing with those facts your turn your guns once again toward me with criticisms about how "I have nothing left" and "I'm thoroughly trounced" blah blah blah...<ad hominem ad nauseum>

You come across as a cornered animal trying to claw his way out of the corner he has backed himself into and I've tried to graciously let you walk out several times. I've backed off a few times and given you outs, just like in this misapplication of Willis' post. But will you take them? No, you dig your heels in and attack me personally and try to demean me instead of just dealing with the facts.

We had an agreement that we would not resort to ad hominem, so lets stick to that, okay?

You are a hard determinist. In your system God determines everything that comes to pass, sinful or otherwise, but its not sinful when He does it because it is for the right motives. Thus, in your worldview, God doesn't ever rely on 'bare permission' but he always determines everything and allows what he has determined (both/and). That has been your view consistently since I've known you, so please don't try to now paint yourself in with Willis by saying you agree with EITHER/OR. Ok?

 

[convicted1]

Right, that is what I was referring to and that is just as I remembered you saying it.

Some people, like Willis (the guy you agreed with), believe in bare permission (remember that term?), where as you believe that everything is ordain/decreed/determined and yet also feel the need to tell us that God has to permit that which he already determined. Seems a bit redundant but whatever.

So, Willis talks about God EITHER permitting OR decreeing all things, and you high five him as if that statement supports your view that all things are determined and then allowed.


I'll accept your apology now. :smilewinkgrin:

I don't know for sure what Willis meant and neither do you.

What I am saying is that his STATEMENT is UTTERLY consistent with what I purport.



I am pretty confident that Willis did NOT mean that God allowed it because he was not quite sure exactly whether or not that reality in which it happened would come to pass.

He, more than likely, believes that God knew exactly what would come to pass in the universe he would build and went right ahead and built that universe anyway allowing evil to come to pass because it would serve a higher and nobler purpose.

I think you admit that you are at least sympathetic to openness theology- I think Willis is probably closer to me than you along those lines.





low blow. Let's don't go back to that mess, ok?

Okay Brothers, to clarify my statement that has been jostled about. The way I have come to understand the scriptures in regards to how God deals with eveil is this. God knew everything from the beginning, and everything that comes to pass was either directly decreed by Him, or He allowed it. IOW, He was the driving force behind everything, yet He stood aside and allowed evil to happen. IOW, nothing evil, wicked, sinful, etc comes from Him, being Holy, Just, Pure, Pristine, Immaculate, Impeccable, etc.


Now, let's look at Adolf Hitler for instance. The Jews, for almost 2,000 years had failed to believe their Messiah had come. They lived in rebellion and paid mightily for it. God allowed Hitler to have his way with the Jews, because of their rebellios ways. In no way was God the driving force behind Hitler's evil doings, but because the Jews failed to believe in the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, they were tortured. God left them to fend for themselves.

 

[convicted1]

not a sparrow falls. to. the. ground without the father

Did the sparrow fall after dying, did it jump, or was it pushed? LOL J/K :thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Okay Brothers, to clarify my statement that has been jostled about. The way I have come to understand the scriptures in regards to how God deals with eveil is this. God knew everything from the beginning, and everything that comes to pass was either directly decreed by Him, or He allowed it. IOW, He was the driving force behind everything, yet He stood aside and allowed evil to happen.

Thank you. You support the same view as I do: Either/or

But, if I know Luke, he will be able to twist your words to somehow make you completely agree with his view: BOTH/AND

IOW, nothing evil, wicked, sinful, etc comes from Him, being Holy, Just, Pure, Pristine, Immaculate, Impeccable, etc.

And Luke believes God does all these evil things ultimately, but he isn't guilty because He does it for good motives. But once again, I'm not sure why he claims to support your views while maintaining his? Confounding.

 

[percho]

As for you, ye devised against me evil -- God devised it for good, in order to do as [at] this day, to keep alive a numerous people; Gen 50:20 YLT

`Known from the ages to God are all His works; Acts 15:18 YLT

Was the evil done by the brothers of Joseph actually a work of God?

 

[Herald]

What makes an event in history uniquely a 'work of God' in a more deterministic worldview?

In other words, if all events, choices and acts are divinely brought to pass through His decisive conditioning of all things that occur (however you want to nuance it), then what is different about those things which God actively DOES and what he merely 'ORDAINS.'

Skan,

I know this thread has matured, but I wonder if the question of what constitutes a work of God has been asked and answered. It would help to know what it is you consider to be a work of God.

 

[SovereignMercy]

What isn't a work of God?

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

 

[Herald]

What isn't a work of God?

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

I didn't create the thread. I want to make sure I understand how Skan defines a work of God.

 

[convicted1]

Thank you. You support the same view as I do: Either/or

But, if I know Luke, he will be able to twist your words to somehow make you completely agree with his view: BOTH/AND

And Luke believes God does all these evil things ultimately, but he isn't guilty because He does it for good motives. But once again, I'm not sure why he claims to support your views while maintaining his? Confounding.

God is the driving source in regards to sin in that He allows men to perform their wickedness. To say men have no choice but to do them because He desired them to perform them, is fringing on determinism.....and I can't, and won't, go that far.

 

[Herald]

God is the driving source in regards to sin in that He allows men to perform their wickedness. To say men have no choice but to do them because He desired them to perform them, is fringing on determinism.....and I can't, and won't, go that far.

Friend, as a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the Doctrines of Grace, let me state unequivocally that God is not the "driving force" behind man's wickedness. That said, a sinner has no choice but to sin; not because God causes him to sin, but because of his sinful nature. Even those things society considers good are done from a wicked, sinful heart. Not until that sin nature is transformed by the new birth can good be done. Determinism would teach that God causes man to sin.

 

[psalms109:31]

The will of God is for man to repent and live. He does not desire the death of anyone to be destroyed but rather them to repent and live. If they do not repent and turn to God through Jesus Christ then they will not live.

God has chosen many to be the messengers of that and used them as His tool to bring many to repentance and life through Jesus Christ.

It is our curse to work the field not God, but God will work through us to accomplish this. I do believe God will is to bring people to repentance like He did Jonah. Nineveh needed a messenger to turn to God. Jonah had already turned to God, but did no want to bring the salvation to heathens whom he thought did not deserve it.

To say the work that He prepared for us is to just be saved is false it is to spread the will of God for mankind that they to repent and live. I do believe Jonah repented by his own free agency.

He wants mankind from the seed of Abraham those who believe God and He will credit to them as righteousness by the free agency He has given to all mankind.

There is not one of you that God will turn His back on, who turn to His Son Jesus Christ and everything He is.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,

I know this thread has matured, but I wonder if the question of what constitutes a work of God has been asked and answered. It would help to know what it is you consider to be a work of God.

A work accomplished by His active agency. Something HE brought to pass by His actively intervening to ensure that it happened. Like the inspiration of the scriptures.

I'd say there are other things that happen that he could have intervened to prevent, but he remained passive thus permitting them to happen. Those would NOT be "works of God."

To teach that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass seems to suggest that everything is equally and unchangeably brought to pass by his divine agency...i.e. everything is ultimately a 'work of God.'

 

[convicted1]

Friend, as a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the Doctrines of Grace, let me state unequivocally that God is not the "driving force" behind man's wickedness.

Brother, maybe you need some new wool from a different sheep? Or maybe you need some new dye? LOL.....J/K

That said, a sinner has no choice but to sin; not because God causes him to sin, but because of his sinful nature. Even those things society considers good are done from a wicked, sinful heart. Not until that sin nature is transformed by the new birth can good be done. Determinism would teach that God causes man to sin.

I understand the point you're making(as well as others on here), but if sinning is a choice, and they have no other choice than to choose said choice, then how's that a choice?

If I find a wallet with $10,000 in it, and I keep it for myself, that's stealing, and that's a sin. If I find that person's ID, and return it to him, then by y'alls definition, I sinned, because even a sinner doing the admirable and honest thing, is constututed as a sin, being a sinner can do nothing but sin. Again, how is sin a choice, if that's the only choice? How would it be a sin to keep a lost wallet, and a sin to give it back?......according to y'all, that sinner even sinned when he returned the wallet to its rightful owner.

 

[Iconoclast]

Friend, as a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the Doctrines of Grace, let me state unequivocally that God is not the "driving force" behind man's wickedness. That said, a sinner has no choice but to sin; not because God causes him to sin, but because of his sinful nature. Even those things society considers good are done from a wicked, sinful heart. Not until that sin nature is transformed by the new birth can good be done. Determinism would teach that God causes man to sin.

This continues to be at the root of most disputes here on the BB,and continues to lead to all manner of wrong conclusions. To understand the fall and it's consequences as revealed is crucial to understand biblical salvation properly.:thumbsup:

 

[Herald]

Brother, maybe you need some new wool from a different sheep? Or maybe you need some new dye? LOL.....J/K






I understand the point you're making(as well as others on here), but if sinning is a choice, and they have no other choice than to choose said choice, then how's that a choice?

If I find a wallet with $10,000 in it, and I keep it for myself, that's stealing, and that's a sin. If I find that person's ID, and return it to him, then by y'alls definition, I sinned, because even a sinner doing the admirable and honest thing, is constututed as a sin, being a sinner can do nothing but sin. Again, how is sin a choice, if that's the only choice? How would it be a sin to keep a lost wallet, and a sin to give it back?......according to y'all, that sinner even sinned when he returned the wallet to its rightful owner.

Friend, it has to do with understanding the consequences and scope of the fall. Sinful man does have a will, but it has been corrupted by sin. Because sinful man is also in a state of sin, everything he does is tainted by his state. If you believe sinful man can actually do good, then you don't believe sinful man is completely fallen. You must believe that the sinner has a divine spark somewhere in his life, even if it is tucked down deep inside.

 

[psalms109:31]

Sinfulness has everything to do with salvation, Jesus came to save sinners and I am the worst, it is to trust in God and not ourselves that matters. Salvation is for sinners, if you had no sin you would not need saving.

1 Timothy 1:15
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

There is none righteous praise God through Jesus there is salvation for them, no one seeks God so He sends us out to seek them.

 

[convicted1]

This continues to be at the root of most disputes here on the BB,and continues to lead to all manner of wrong conclusions. To understand the fall and it's consequences as revealed is crucial to understand biblical salvation properly.:thumbsup:

And our side of the debate, can say the same thing to y'all as well....


a :thumbsup: back at you.....:laugh: :love2:......J/K

 

[convicted1]

Friend, it has to do with understanding the consequences and scope of the fall. Sinful man does have a will, but it has been corrupted by sin. Because sinful man is also in a state of sin, everything he does is tainted by his state. If you believe sinful man can actually do good, then you don't believe sinful man is completely fallen. You must believe that the sinner has a divine spark somewhere in his life, even if it is tucked down deep inside.

So explain how if a sinner keeps a wallet full of money it's a sin....and it is......an yet, if they return it to its rightful owner, it's sin.......there's really no choice in the matter.....even doing the rightful thing is a sin according to y'all......

 

[Iconoclast]

So explain how if a sinner keeps a wallet full of money it's a sin....and it is......an yet, if they return it to its rightful owner, it's sin.......there's really no choice in the matter.....even doing the rightful thing is a sin according to y'all......

Hello Willis,

4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Even lawful activities not done to God's glory are sin.

Both sides can say The same thing..however...we know only one side is correct...y'all..:laugh: I am in the south tonight,,I can say Y'all also:thumbs: