What view of justice is "carnal" and what is not?

[preacher4truth]

A wrong view of God does lead to wrong thinking about God.


This as written...is as P4T would say is deficient. God is only good, only truth,only love.....but he is also only righteous,only just,only holy,only wise, etc. To cherry pick a few attributes and neglect the rest is wrong


both sides are mentioned together...in other words...the God of Jn.3:16...is the same God who destroyed the world of the ungodly in Gen6....




The only people who attribute evil to God here on BB are those who do not understand God's grace,and try and pin that idea upon those who understand the grace of God as revealed in all the scripture.

Only you and the other non-cals offer this idea......calvinists have said time and time again that God is not the author of evil.....and yet you because of your lack of understanding insist it can be so.

In this very post you do it with this phrase:"


This so called "roundabout"way...is where your misunderstanding forces you to twist and accuse cals of your false claim....so your carnal philosophical view
can attempt to set aside divine truth.



This is a clear denial of revealed truth.....because you have a wrong view of the fall, an inflated view of man and his ability.
So whats left...you become an accuser of the brethren.You project on others the very thing you do.

you project it right here:

You're exactly correct Iconoclast. Benjamin does condemn his own theology here with his own words, (instead of his intended audience; i.e. those who hold to our theological stance) which is most assuredly "resentful" of all things God, (to use his words):

Such a belief demonstrates a carnal mindset which is resentful of God’s power and righteous judgment

He was not aware that he had spoken against His own objections of Sovereign God. And you are correct again Iconoclast; this all goes right back to and stems from his errant and fallacious view of sinful man within his lost state shown forth in Biblical revelation.

All the omnis, the Sovereignty of God, and the true state of lost mankind are all jeopardized from his faulty premise.

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

Glad you're on Scandal's side. :laugh:

Ah, the immaturity of sides surfaces again.

 

[Skandelon]

A carnal or natural sense of justice is that man can discern from nature.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This arbitrary and unfounded statement asserts a premise which assumes that the Creator of NATURE made it such that men could NOT discern true justice, but only the 'carnal' kind. Yet, Romans 2 clearly teaches that all men are born with a conscience (or a law written on their heart) telling them the difference between right and wrong. According to Aaron's premise then, should we assume that our conscience is just carnal and should be dismissed when it tells us it seems wrong for someone to hold someone else accountable for a determination they themselves made? I guess so. And for what reason? Because Paul's intent in Romans 9 is misunderstood to mean something it clearly doesn't when the entire context is considered objectively.

So the question, "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" is a perfectly natural question.

And it would actually pertain to our debate IF indeed it was God's will to condemn to hell from birth those he hardened. But, since God patiently 'held out his hands' (10:21) to them in love and has even made provision through the means of envy to provoke them to salvation still (11:14), clearly such an application of this scripture is grossly misapplied.

By your standard of hermeneutic, I could arbitrarily claim God's will is to save Paul alone and at any protest simply quote this verse over and over as a defense. The point being is that you are once again begging the question by presuming God's will is as defined by Calvinism, when that is the point up for debate.

A spiritual sense of justice begins with the humble submission to God's will, whatever it may be.

Humble yourselves and you will be lifted up. Some people are apparently waiting around for God to do that for them.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by Benjamin:
Those that attribute evil to Him, whether directly or in a roundabout way,

Originally posted by Iconoclast:
This so called "roundabout"way...is where your misunderstanding forces you to twist and accuse cals of your false claim....so your carnal philosophical view
can attempt to set aside divine truth.

The subject my premise refers to is a view that displays it doesn’t recognize God is Only Good, Truth and Love as opposed to evil:

Originally posted by Benjamin:
I believe any view which displays one does not recognize that God is only Good, Truth and Love reveals that they do not have a relationship with Him that is built in love with Him. Those that attribute evil to Him, whether directly or in a roundabout way, may believe in Him, fear Him, study His word and understand that He is the Only way to salvation, but it is abundantly apparent they don’t know Him or they would know that He is Love in Truth and there is no possibility of evil coming our Loving Father.

But I see you don’t like that phrase “roundabout” and you claim I misunderstand and am forced to twist and accuse Calvinist. Did I say “Calvinist” or did I say “any view which displays one does not recognize that God is only Good, Truth and Love”?

Further, you suggest that I presented a “carnal philosophical view” meaning (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil) is a carnal view.

What does…“your carnal philosophical view can attempt to set aside divine truth” refer to and object to if not the subject (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil)??? Me?” :laugh: (now, that would be a direct personal attack BTW, you should know better than that) Do you not see the “roundabout” way, aside your typical MO to call carnal those who oppose “your” what you call “divine truth”, in this case, must be in opposition to the clear subject.

Iconoclast, I’m afraid you misunderstand that you have just used a “roundabout” way to object to my clear subject of: (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil). Do you not see the irony in that?

Again, what we have here is you using a “roundabout way” (AD Hominem) to voice your objection that (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil).

But, thanks for making my point that this often happens in a roundabout way.

 

[JesusFan]

Over the years my 'non-calvinistic' view of divine justice has been deemed 'carnal,' but what is the measure of such an accusation?

Calvinism attributes to God determinations, which in any similar human context would be considered unjust by all objective observers.

Yet, by what measure do we deem God 'good' and 'just?' If we look to scripture where it speaks of the just manner in which one should treat another the Calvinists simply dismisses those passages as not applicable to God, but only a measure for how men should act.

If one points to scripture regarding God's holy nature and the fact that he wouldn't even tempt men to sin, they simply defer to 'secondary causes' by which God causally determines the means by which the temptation is sure to take place but where He himself is not the actual tempter thus somehow subtly removing any culpability for effectually bringing the temptation to pass. So, you have God doing anything and everything through secondary means as if that somehow justifies it.

Why does He do this, you ask? The ultimate good, according to Calvinism, is God’s glory. And one would think God's glory would be more manifest by promoting a sense of true justice, but the opposite is the case in the Calvinistic worldview. In fact, it appears that the more people who are repulsed by their view of God's justice the less 'carnal' it must be. Just ignore the fact those repulsed are also born again believers, including many of them when first introduced to reformed theology.

It appears to me that this appeal to God's Glory for the Calvinist has become some kind of a blank check to justify whatever they believe God is responsible for doing, regardless of how 'wrong' it might appear to the rest of us 'carnal' observers.

If God had chosen to save everyone or damn everyone, Calvinists would say it was for His glory. So the theory doesn’t explain anything, since it could be used to explain everything. There is no measure of what 'evil' a Calvinist could claim God has or has not done (through whatever primary or secondary means necessary of course) when he has the blank check waiting in his back pocket ready to pull out at the first sign of any protest by one of the 'carnal' observers. So, I guess we'll just keep our mouths shut (or maybe not) for fear of offending their concept of what is Glorious about our God lest we be labeled once again as "carnal."

Do you believe that God is PERFECt in ALL of His divine attributes?

if yes, than why get so worked up over the biblical facts that God will do whatever pleases Him, and that whatever He chooses to do with be the BEST decision to be made each time?

NONE of us will be advising the Lord, as His ways/thoughts are FAR above /beyond us!
The HS knows His very thoguhts, but we do not!

Your posting here appears to be just the sort that Apostle pauls addresses, by asking who are we to find fault with God?

 

[Benjamin]

You're exactly correct Iconoclast. Benjamin does condemn his own theology here with his own words, (instead of his intended audience; i.e. those who hold to our theological stance) which is most assuredly "resentful" of all things God, (to use his words):

Such a belief demonstrates a carnal mindset which is resentful of God’s power and righteous judgment

How convenient of you two to disregard the rest of that sentence:

Originally posted by Benjamin: Such a belief demonstrates a carnal mindset which is resentful of God’s power and righteous judgment... ...upon all mankind because they struggle to bear the condition of faith from their own heart which only comes from love of the Truth.

He was not aware that he had spoken against His own objections of Sovereign God.

Define your view sovereignty if not in opposition to "God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil". Seems more like you are condemning your own theology to fit the bill of what I said.

 

[preacher4truth]

Do you believe that God is PERFECt in ALL of His divine attributes?

if yes, than why get so worked up over the biblical facts that God will do whatever pleases Him, and that whatever He chooses to do with be the BEST decision to be made each time?

NONE of us will be advising the Lord, as His ways/thoughts are FAR above /beyond us!
The HS knows His very thoguhts, but we do not!

Your posting here appears to be just the sort that Apostle pauls addresses, by asking who are we to find fault with God?

Yep.

These are the same incessant questions ophrased differently, all with the same basic objection and objective.

Iconoclast nailed and suggested this also in his response.

And yet, this quote is still troubling and is fitting when tied in with your last statement jesusfan:

So, you have God doing anything and everything through secondary means as if that somehow justifies it.

Ponder such a thought suggested by another.

 

[Iconoclast]

The subject my premise refers to is a view that displays it doesn’t recognize God is Only Good, Truth and Love as opposed to evil:


But I see you don’t like that phrase “roundabout” and you claim I misunderstand and am forced to twist and accuse Calvinist. Did I say “Calvinist” or did I say “any view which displays one does not recognize that God is only Good, Truth and Love”?

Further, you suggest that I presented a “carnal philosophical view” meaning (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil) is a carnal view.

What does…“your carnal philosophical view can attempt to set aside divine truth” refer to and object to if not the subject (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil)??? Me?” :laugh: (now, that would be a direct personal attack BTW, you should know better than that) Do you not see the “roundabout” way, aside your typical MO to call carnal those who oppose “your” what you call “divine truth”, in this case, must be in opposition to the clear subject.

Iconoclast, I’m afraid you misunderstand that you have just used a “roundabout” way to object to my clear subject of: (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil). Do you not see the irony in that?

Again, what we have here is you using a “roundabout way” (AD Hominem) to voice your objection that (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil).

But, thanks for making my point that this often happens in a roundabout way.

So Benjamin my friend...
Are you saying you have not accused calvinists of this "roundabout" way.
You have both done that....and directly stated such several times.....and you know it. A bit disengenuous...don't you think? That aside

Iconoclast, I’m afraid you misunderstand that you have just used a “roundabout” way to object to my clear subject of: (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil). Do you not see the irony in that?

You cannot even be honest enough to address the issue....My quote from Exodus shows that was not my intention,or how I used your phrase.
try again.....I notice you do not respond to the other parts of the post...
jn3 gen 6...not surprised however.
Then we have this....

What does…“your [/FONT][/COLOR]carnal philosophical view can attempt to set aside divine truth” refer to and object to if not the subject (God is Only Good, Truth, and Love as opposed to evil)??? Me?” :laugh: (now, that would be a direct personal attack BTW, you should know better than that) Do you not see the “roundabout” way, aside your typical MO to call carnal those who oppose “your” what you call “divine truth”, in this case, must be in opposition to the clear subject.

well let me make it clear for you....NO it is not that God is good,or truthful...
carnal reasoning is what several of you do trying to resist the truth of God's free grace.....this is not direct personal attack...but what actually takes place most everyday here. Here is what it is....and for examples you can look to most of your posts and see for yourself...

Scripture verses are offered....you or one of the others take a word from the verse ,and misuse it....or you go off from scripture with one of these syllogisms.or allegorical,anecdotal stories.......if x= something and y is something else, the z cannot be this because....

or The apostle said this , but obviously he could not mean what the church has taught for years,because the first cause, is not causitive, etc....

no verses are offered, just paragraph after paragraph spinning wheels going nowhere fast.

That is what I speak of as carnal reasoning...not derived from scripture....as if you are setting yourself over scripture.

Another way to see it is when in the middle of a debate some say...I never said that.....as in your reply here......I said it is wrong to cherry pick verses, and offered the Exodus verse as an example of keeping a balance....
instead you try to turn it, but have failed once again...

here is one of your recent offerings;
Second, the author of the quote you cite begins his argument with a “weaseler” (literature given to protect a claim by watering it down): i.e. “While the doctrine of predestination is not a necessary outgrowth of the absolute foreknowledge of God,” Then he criticizes resorting to a paradox to maintain logically incompatible omni-doctrines , continues in contradiction of himself by offering up a “classical view of foreknowledge” as an absolute to proclaim predestination as truth and saying, “this indeedprecludes the concept of authentic human freedom” in essence presuming one (omni-doctrine) is more important than the other. Then again goes back to speak of how we must resort to a paradox and how that is illogical while insisting his doctrine of classical foreknowledge has its origin of in logical formation while admitting it defies human freedom. His argument becomes almost humorous as he displays his double-minded reasoning. In the crux of his argument (speaking of the necessity of maintaining Omni-doctrines) he ignores Omnibenevolence (which is necessary for righteous judgment and to avoid fatalism) in favor of Omniscience.
lol....there are many more

 

[Aaron]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This arbitrary and unfounded statement asserts a premise which assumes that the Creator of NATURE made it such that men could NOT discern true justice, but only the 'carnal' kind.

Natural justice is true justice—on earth. And it's the law of God—on earth. On earth, men will not be judged for their evil hearts, but only for their evil actions. But in heaven (IOW, from the point of view of Heaven) men are judged for what they are. So, as I showed you in the thread you closed to escape admitting defeat, the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day are co-murderers with them who slew Zechariah some 800 years earlier. They won't answer for it on earth, because they didn't do it on earth. They did it in their hearts, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment. And not only for the murder of Zechariah, but for all the righteous blood from Abel to the end of the world.

But there is a justice even higher than that, that we're told simply cannot be perceived by men. Ways that are higher than ours than the sky is above the earth. Thoughts that are too big for men, even spiritual men, to conceive.

Yet, Romans 2 clearly teaches that all men are born with a conscience (or a law written on their heart) telling them the difference between right and wrong. According to Aaron's premise then, should we assume that our conscience is just carnal and should be dismissed when it tells us it seems wrong for someone to hold someone else accountable for a determination they themselves made?

And here, you do that which is condemned in Romans 1, to make the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man. Stop thinking of God as a man. He is not a man. He is not under the law. The law is smaller than He is. He is the Creator, and if He creates one for one purpose, and another for a different purpose, there is nothing you can say about it. How is He wrong to do what He will with His own? He didn't ask you, and He will not be judged by you. Just be thankful He told you, and be humble enough to accept it.

I guess so. And for what reason? Because Paul's intent in Romans 9 is misunderstood to mean something it clearly doesn't when the entire context is considered objectively...

You don't consider it objectively. You are forced to rewrite it and create a huge fairy tale around it to satisfy your carnal sense of justice.

And it would actually pertain to our debate IF indeed it was God's will to condemn to hell from birth those he hardened. But, since God patiently 'held out his hands' (10:21) to them in love and has even made provision through the means of envy to provoke them to salvation still (11:14), clearly such an application of this scripture is grossly misapplied.

God loved Jacob and hated Esau before either were born. You see? You cross swords with Paul at each step. Your arguments are easy to overcome.

 

[Benjamin]

.....I notice you do not respond to the other parts of the post...

I could play the scripture food fight game, which you would wish to use as a smokescreen and draw this into a circular debate around, all day long with you Iconoclast. The fact that you have nothing left but start attacking the usefulness of logic concerning those verses you want to play games with merely shows your ignorance of how to conduct an argument designed to draw out the truth within those verses.

Scripture verses are offered....you or one of the others take a word from the verse ,and misuse it....or you go off from scripture with one of these syllogisms.or allegorical,anecdotal stories.......if x= something and y is something else, the z cannot be this because....

or The apostle said this , but obviously he could not mean what the church has taught for years,because the first cause, is not causitive, etc....

no verses are offered, just paragraph after paragraph spinning wheels going nowhere fast.

It is a clear waste of time to address most your arguments because you have shown over and over you can not follow simple philosophical principles designed to draw out the "truth" in a matter. We’ve had this discussion in the past about philosophy before and I will not pursue your attempt at a smokescreen to advert the topic of discussion to this matter which you whine about.

 

[Skandelon]

Natural justice is true justice—on earth. And it's the law of God—on earth. On earth, men will not be judged for their evil hearts, but only for their evil actions.

Motive is considered in both cases, it is just more fully laid bare in the sight of an all knowing God. You prove this in your next statement, when you write...

So, as I showed you in the thread you closed to escape admitting defeat,

You judged my heart...my motive (wrongly, but nevertheless). To judge ones motives we look at their actions and how they typically respond. You know me well enough to know that I don't typically run from arguments, especially with you. I relish a good discussion and you, with all our disagreements, are typically willing to give as well as you get, which I actually like. With that knowledge, and the knowledge that any threads topic can be picked up anywhere else (like you did here); one objectively considering the case might judge that either I didn't close the thread in question, or did it with a different motive (like too many reported posts or getting too long and off topic etc). See how that works? Thanks for providing a case in point.

the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day are co-murderers with them who slew Zechariah some 800 years earlier. They won't answer for it on earth, because they didn't do it on earth. They did it in their hearts, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment. And not only for the murder of Zechariah, but for all the righteous blood from Abel to the end of the world.

I'm fine with all that, but then again I believe they are 'in control' of their own hearts whereas you believe God determined their natures to be what they are...and that is the 'rub.'

I actually believe one can do as scripture says and "humble themselves." I can choose to humble myself, or I can choose to defend, fight, and be prideful. If I choose the former my heart will remain soft and receptive. If I choose pride my heart will grow hardened. You on the other hand believe man is more virtually totally hardened and nothing he does, chooses or resists even matters. His nature is determined from birth and can only be altered by an effectual work of God which was determined long before the person was even born. So, the verses you referenced above REALLY means, "They did it in the heart God determined beforehand for them to do, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment." You call it "their heart" but it is really "God's heart" because God is the one who created it to be what it is in such a way that it could not have been otherwise. It is not "theirs" at all, it is God's. What makes it "their heart" Aaron? Is it because they own it? Or because it is in their chest? What makes a person's hearts their own? I mean what if you took their heart and put it in God's chest instead, would it matter? He is the one making it do what it does any way, so what would it matter where it is?

Just be thankful He told you, and be humble enough to accept it.

You say that as if I could. At least be consistent and ask God to humble me.

God loved Jacob and hated Esau before either were born. You see?

Yes, I do see and I also see that hate is a word discribing a choice of one OVER another. One for a noble purpose and one for common use, just as we are called to hate our parents and choose to follow God... You see?

You wrongly interpret scripture to mean that God literally hates, as in not loving Esau. I suppose you think we are to not love our parents too?

You cross swords with Paul at each step. Your arguments are easy to overcome.

Equating your sword with Paul's is again just a common immature fallacy of question begging and serves no purpose here.

 

[JesusFan]

Yep.

These are the same incessant questions ophrased differently, all with the same basic objection and objective.

Iconoclast nailed and suggested this also in his response.

And yet, this quote is still troubling and is fitting when tied in with your last statement jesusfan:



Ponder such a thought suggested by another.

just wonder how there can be place much confidence in a God who either does not know all things that will happen, or else is dependent upon others to make sure that His Will can get done!

The absolute sovereignty of God is a big thing to me, as it reduces me having to relying upon myself as the ultimate source of my powering, and that I can have assurance in a God who know all things, can intervene in my life to make sure that despite my own at times bad decisions, he can still override them to make sure all things will work together for my good in the end!

Wonder how many Non cals here would agree with Bible that 'I MSUT decrease, so that he MUST increase?"

or that allowing God to call all the shots would result in perfect peace, and assure an "abundant life?"

 

[JesusFan]

Motive is considered in both cases, it is just more fully laid bare in the sight of an all knowing God. You prove this in your next statement, when you write...

You judged my heart...my motive (wrongly, but nevertheless). To judge ones motives we look at their actions and how they typically respond. You know me well enough to know that I don't typically run from arguments, especially with you. I relish a good discussion and you, with all our disagreements, are typically willing to give as well as you get, which I actually like. With that knowledge, and the knowledge that any threads topic can be picked up anywhere else (like you did here); one objectively considering the case might judge that either I didn't close the thread in question, or did it with a different motive (like too many reported posts or getting too long and off topic etc). See how that works? Thanks for providing a case in point.

I'm fine with all that, but then again I believe they are 'in control' of their own hearts whereas you believe God determined their natures to be what they are...and that is the 'rub.'

I actually believe one can do as scripture says and "humble themselves." I can choose to humble myself, or I can choose to defend, fight, and be prideful. If I choose the former my heart will remain soft and receptive. If I choose pride my heart will grow hardened. You on the other hand believe man is more virtually totally hardened and nothing he does, chooses or resists even matters. His nature is determined from birth and can only be altered by an effectual work of God which was determined long before the person was even born. So, the verses you referenced above REALLY means, "They did it in the heart God determined beforehand for them to do, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment." You call it "their heart" but it is really "God's heart" because God is the one who created it to be what it is in such a way that it could not have been otherwise. It is not "theirs" at all, it is God's. What makes it "their heart" Aaron? Is it because they own it? Or because it is in their chest? What makes a person's hearts their own? I mean what if you took their heart and put it in God's chest instead, would it matter? He is the one making it do what it does any way, so what would it matter where it is?

You say that as if I could. At least be consistent and ask God to humble me.

Yes, I do see and I also see that hate is a word discribing a choice of one OVER another. One for a noble purpose and one for common use, just as we are called to hate our parents and choose to follow God... You see?

You wrongly interpret scripture to mean that God literally hates, as in not loving Esau. I suppose you think we are to not love our parents too?


Equating your sword with Paul's is again just a common immature fallacy of question begging and serves no purpose here.

A Big problem with non cal theology in this area is a "watering down" of the fall of Adam, and its results....

MUCH of what you say regarding choosing/free will/motives etc would work in case of Adam, as he was created in free will, but after he chose to sin, that was forever taken away!

We can do NOTHING in and by ourselves to get saved, its fully the work of God, as we are at war in our flesh against Him, cannot be tamed, and only he can make us willing to come to Christ and get saved!

 

[preacher4truth]

A Big problem with non cal theology in this area is a "watering down" of the fall of Adam, and its results....

MUCH of what you say regarding choosing/free will/motives etc would work in case of Adam, as he was created in free will, but after he chose to sin, that was forever taken away!

We can do NOTHING in and by ourselves to get saved, its fully the work of God, as we are at war in our flesh against Him, cannot be tamed, and only he can make us willing to come to Christ and get saved!

Yes, one of several huge problems with their theology, but you'll never convince them.

There definitely is an agenda when a persons subject is nearly always directed at one thing, in this case Calvinist theology.

All one can do is answer with truth while keeping in mind the objective isn't against one personally at all, it goes much higher than that.

Another thing that I take up is addressing threads where blatantly false implications are stated against Calvinist theology and in this case individual Calvinists; i.e. the thread where one stated something along the lines that arminian/non-cal theology and those who hold to it "own up" to their sins, while calvinists don't accept responsibility. That was the implication and it remains a total misrepresentation altogether. Imagine starting such a thread with the same tone and subjective accusations against non-cals and their theology? Nevertheless we saw several chime in to support this captious and mendacious characterization of the calvinist brethren.

But looking at all of this and its frequency, I for one am flattered concerning such an assailment.

Now we have a new thread, with a new twist, and it again is misguided and erroneous in its attempt to represent Calvinist theology.

I am still interested and struck by the quote used here:

So, you have God doing anything and everything through secondary means as if that somehow justifies it.

That right there says a lot.

Anyhow, simply address the fallacious teaching, and go on. And don't allow the misrepresentation of this theology along with those who espouse it to go on unaddressed, no matter how many chime in to support it. It's still error, even if you have to stand alone against it.

By the way, you, Aaron, The Archangel, Iconoclast, EWF, JArthur, Luke2427, glfredrick among others have been excellent in exposing the errors of this in its many threads.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

A Big problem with non cal theology in this area is a "watering down" of the fall of Adam, and its results....

Question begging. It would only be 'watered down' IF Calvinism's premise is true, which is the point up for debate. Read the account of the Fall again and tell me where it says that all men after Adam would be born unable to respond to God appeal to be reconciled. I look forward to that.

We can do NOTHING in and by ourselves to get saved,

Agreed, but we are not left to ourselves, now are we?

 

[Aaron]

Motive is considered in both cases...

Here's what makes interacting with you a tedium. One will say the sky is blue, and you will say, but not at dusk or dawn or nighttime, or if it's too cloudy.

Well, duh! That's understood.

... it is just more fully laid bare in the sight of an all knowing God.

More than that. Judging a man's heart is more than exposing the actions they committed in earth, it's exposing the guilt they bear for things for which one cannot know by nature he could be held accountable.

Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
​

The scribes and Pharisees 800 years after the event are indeed the murderers of Zechariah.

In fact, one by nature would say it shouldn't be so, which is what you say, and why you said that Christ was only saying they were guilty of the same kinds of things.

You judged my heart...my motive (wrongly, but nevertheless). To judge ones motives we look at their actions and how they typically respond. You know me well enough to know that I don't typically run from arguments, especially with you. I relish a good discussion and you, with all our disagreements, are typically willing to give as well as you get, which I actually like. With that knowledge, and the knowledge that any threads topic can be picked up anywhere else (like you did here); one objectively considering the case might judge that either I didn't close the thread in question, or did it with a different motive (like too many reported posts or getting too long and off topic etc). See how that works? Thanks for providing a case in point.

Your parting shots at the closing of a thread belie this explanation.

I'm fine with all that, but then again I believe they are 'in control' of their own hearts...

And in this you are deceived. You have been shown time and again that the carnal mind is at enmity with God, and canNOT be subject to it.

I actually believe one can do as scripture says and "humble themselves." I can choose to humble myself, or I can choose to defend, fight, and be prideful. If I choose the former my heart will remain soft and receptive. If I choose pride my heart will grow hardened. You on the other hand believe man is more virtually totally hardened and nothing he does, chooses or resists even matters. His nature is determined from birth and can only be altered by an effectual work of God which was determined long before the person was even born. So, the verses you referenced above REALLY means, "They did it in the heart God determined beforehand for them to do, and so will answer for it on the Day of Judgment." You call it "their heart" but it is really "God's heart" because God is the one who created it to be what it is in such a way that it could not have been otherwise. It is not "theirs" at all, it is God's. What makes it "their heart" Aaron? Is it because they own it? Or because it is in their chest? What makes a person's hearts their own? I mean what if you took their heart and put it in God's chest instead, would it matter? He is the one making it do what it does any way, so what would it matter where it is?

Your little rant is rebutted above. So thankful for Paul!

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,
it would be a waste of time ,at this time.

It is a clear waste of time to address most your arguments because you have shown over and over you can not follow simple philosophical principles designed to draw out the "truth" in a matter. We’ve had this discussion in the past about philosophy before and I will not pursue your attempt at a smokescreen to advert the topic of discussion to this matter which you whine about.

Like I said..scripture and what it teaches is spiritually discerned...it must be God given...you do not agree there so....I am not interested in your philosphical attempts to "divine" spiritual truth by philosophy;

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Paul faced philosophers in acts 17 also...they had similar feelings-

18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

I wonder if they felt Paul could not follow;
simple philosophical principles designed to draw out the "truth" in a matter.

Well Ben...we approach things from a different point of view...the two will not find agreement anytime soon...

I will stick with this:

3In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

4And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

5For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

7Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[Benjamin]

I am not interested in your philosphical attempts to "divine" spiritual truth by philosophy;


Paul faced philosophers in acts 17 also...they had similar feelings-



I wonder if they felt Paul could not follow;
simple philosophical principles designed to draw out the "truth" in a matter.

Well Ben...we approach things from a different point of view...the two will not find agreement anytime soon...

I will stick with this:

This has nothing to do with the topic and of course you're going to continue with this smokescreen whinning about philosophical reasoning which takes you off your game plan. But I'll offer you this: You might want to re-read Acts 17 and take note that Paul understood philosophy very well and addressed Epicurean and Stoic philosophers after they began to refute him and he did it point by point. Paul even quoted some of their teachers in his sermon so obviously he knew quite a bit about Greek philosophy and spoke with philosophical language. Oh, yes, Paul was learned man and reflected knowledge of the major philosophies in several of his letters. Paul's question-and-answer style in Romans 3:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 6:2-19 are very similar to Cynic. Philonic or Platonic thought is reflected in Hebrews. Paul quotes the Greek Philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12 when he says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." Apparently Paul often answered with philosophical reasoning to get the truth of his messages across to "men of reason".

 

[marke]

Excellent post Mark,

For the scriptures say: "God is Love" I Johne 4:8

Non-Calvinist's believe these verses.

18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

19I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

20Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

21Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Non Calvinists believe these verses too.

The OP is not misguided at all. Thanks to those who can ask such questions in honestly and humility.

Thanks, "Q", excellent response.

 

[preacher4truth]

Here's what makes interacting with you a tedium. One will say the sky is blue, and you will say, but not at dusk or dawn or nighttime, or if it's too cloudy.

Well, duh! That's understood.

More than that. Judging a man's heart is more than exposing the actions they committed in earth, it's exposing the guilt they bear for things for which one cannot know by nature he could be held accountable.

Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
​

The scribes and Pharisees 800 years after the event are indeed the murderers of Zechariah.

In fact, one by nature would say it shouldn't be so, which is what you say, and why you said that Christ was only saying they were guilty of the same kinds of things.

Your parting shots at the closing of a thread belie this explanation.

And in this you are deceived. You have been shown time and again that the carnal mind is at enmity with God, and canNOT be subject to it.

Your little rant is rebutted above. So thankful for Paul!

Good post. Even a cursory examination of arminian theology will certainly show the exaltation of man, and the diminishing of the attributes of God must by necessity proceed form that point. Non-cal theologies suffer the same fate, while many of this non-cal variety cry to not be "labelled" this allows them to continue on oblivious to and hiding from what saids beliefs label them as, and from the subsequent indictment it places on them due to their theology.

I patiently await the next assailment on Calvinist theology, and to yet again hear the proponents thereof speak again and exalt again their cherry-picked attributes while turning a blinded eye to all the Glory, and that they will yet again remind us of the power of man and choice that cripples Sovereignty until man makes a decision.