Why...

[npetreley]

The impossibility of lying regards retaining His character as God as much as Jesus resisting temptation proved His character and that He was God.

[...]

So I would say it is still "Self-discipline" that keeps God from doing whatever He wants.

You contradicted yourself. If God does not lie because of self-discipline, then it is possible for God to lie. He chooses not to lie through self-discipline. But the Bible clearly states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. I guess that means (to you) that God is not omnipotent.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I will say this and then likely bow out since we have once again stooped to absurdity.

I got one more thing I forgot to mention --- do you agree with this idea that if God didn't "fate" the "elect" to be saved, NNE would receive Christ??

That’s not fate. How many times do we have to say that before you accept it?

How is it FREE, Larry?? Is God "God" if He is not FREE??

God is free. I am not sure how you are confused. Freedom does not mean the ability to do anything. Even in your view of free will, man is not free because he can’t rise up and fly. You have wrongly defined freedom and then expect to pin God down based on that.

What impact does it have on your theology if God is holy because He chooses to be rather than because He has to be??

It goes to the heart of who God is.

OK, you alluding to a scripture there and an interpretation of it. "In Adam all sin." right? Does that mean at birth? or eventually? Or is that your source?

Yes, that among others. Adam was our federal head. Adam’s sin in imputed to all of Adam’s race.

Who's right, Larry?? Do you agree the correct answer is pretty critical to Calvinism??

We are right because our answers come from Scripture rightly interpreted. Your’s do not.

OK, did God plan to kill the widow's child?

Yes.

Why would God then bring his soul back into him at Elijah's request?

Because that was part of his plan to demonstrate his glory and grace.

According to you, they didn't/can't "choose" sin -- it is their "nature." How can you say they ever had a choice (or the God ever had a choice?)?

They do have a choice. No one is forced to sin.

"Working out His purpose" in utter disregard of His creatures. That's almost offensive to me if you indeed agree that God is love!

That’s offensive to me to. And that’s not what I said. God doesn’t work out his purpose in utter disregard of his creatures. You just make stuff up.

Now you need to come over and worship the God of the Bible and not the "Fate God" of Calvinism!

Pure nonsense.

If you are starting to detect the distinction, let me tell you -- the God of the Bible is the God of free will and fate. He changes His mind in eternity past when His foreknowledge tells Him what His creatures will do with "go great a salvation!" or when they pray. The God of the Bible INTERACTS with His creation -- He is NOT the great "Puppet Master" called "Fate."

More pure nonsense. Does not even begin to make sense. He changes his mind in eternity past? There was no time then. How did he change his mind? You are so tied to the logic your mind can understand that it causes you to say absolutely silly stuff in an attempt to argue against Calvinism.

I am sure you believe in my God but just cannot admit it or, at least, acknowledge it.

Not as you have described him here.

 

[npetreley]

I will say this and then likely bow out since we have once again stooped to absurdity.

Good thinking.

 

[skypair]

You contradicted yourself. If God does not lie because of self-discipline, then it is possible for God to lie. He chooses not to lie through self-discipline. But the Bible clearly states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. I guess that means (to you) that God is not omnipotent.

Yeah, ya' got me there, npet! NOT! You obviously DON'T quote the context but an "outake." Re: Heb 6:18 -- "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"

What are the 2 immutable things, npeterely?? His counsel and His oath.

It is so sad when someone tries to derail a thread with incomplete information!

skypair

 

[skypair]

That’s not fate. How many times do we have to say that before you accept it?

Predestination, fate -- same thing.

God is free. I am not sure how you are confused. Freedom does not mean the ability to do anything. Even in your view of free will, man is not free because he can’t rise up and fly. You have wrongly defined freedom and then expect to pin God down based on that.

You might have hit on a good point in your favor. "Not free" to do what is not in our ability to do. God can do everything or He is not omnipotent. Is that not true?

Yes, that among others. Adam was our federal head. Adam’s sin in imputed to all of Adam’s race.

Let me suggest this -- if Adam is our "federal head" in the way you describe, then he is guilty for all of us, right? Then he takes the place of Christ, no? Our sin was imputed to Adam if what you say is so.

We are right because our answers come from Scripture rightly interpreted. Your’s do not.

We wouldn't call it a "debate" if that were so.

They do have a choice. No one is forced to sin.

Of course they are if they have no other options -- and that is what Calvinism asserts!

That’s offensive to me to. And that’s not what I said. God doesn’t work out his purpose in utter disregard of his creatures. You just make stuff up.

OK, in what way does God "consider" His creatures? They can't ask for salvation since that is decided for them. They can't expect God to change His mind even in the depths of their dispair, God's plan will be done -- that widow's child dies under natural law and without God's intervention. Tell me, Larry, how does God respond to His creatures?

One thing I want you never to do, Larry, and I mean it from my heart --- don't EVER tell a widow at her husband's funeral, "Well, I guess it was God's will." That is THE MOST PERVERSE thing I can think of and caused my MIL to never set foot in a Baptist church again!! And that is just saying that "all is fate!" That may be what you believe long after you have "broken it off" with me but don't you see that God is not like that??? That there are "other wills" that determine fate and not just God??

More pure nonsense. Does not even begin to make sense. He changes his mind in eternity past? There was no time then.

That is only because you reject foreknowledge, Larry. ALL of time was displayed out before Him, second by second, before it ever existed! See, this is why you have a "god of fate." You can't see this one truth. To you, God is not omniscient but is "blind" to time in eternity past and only "programs" time as He wants it to transpire.

How did he change his mind?

How do we OFTEN see Him "change His mind?" He REPENTS of that punishment He thought to administer to Lot, to Nineveh, to Hezekiah. What do YOU call that?? Will you for once admit that God said He truly repented Himself of these?? When?? When He foresaw the reaction of His creatures!

Larry, if you pray will God answer? You have never answered me that. Or will FATE be your only consolation?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Predestination, fate -- same thing.

Uh ... No.

God can do everything or He is not omnipotent. Is that not true?

He can everything which is a proper object of his own power. He can't make a rock so big he can't move it. He can't make a round square. He can't sin. Those are not proper objects of his power.

Let me suggest this -- if Adam is our "federal head" in the way you describe, then he is guilty for all of us, right? Then he takes the place of Christ, no? Our sin was imputed to Adam if what you say is so.

I think you are finally on the right track here. Yes, Adam was guilty for all of us. He does not take the place of Christ, however. It is the opposite. Christ takes the place of Adam. That is why the Bible calls Christ the "last Adam." Christ did for us what Adam did not.

And this goes to the heart of salvation. Becasue we are guilty by the imputation of Adam's sin, we can be righteous through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. If we become guilty through our own acts of sin, then we must become righteous through our own acts of righteousness. That is hte point of Romans 5.

Of course they are if they have no other options -- and that is what Calvinism asserts!

No, they sin willfully. They are not forced to. No one is holding a gun to their head. They act on their wills.

OK, in what way does God "consider" His creatures?

He considers their frame that they are dust. He loves them. He sent his son for them. He considers them in many way.

They can't ask for salvation since that is decided for them. They can't expect God to change His mind even in the depths of their dispair, God's plan will be done -- that widow's child dies under natural law and without God's intervention. Tell me, Larry, how does God respond to His creatures?

He responds to them in grace and mercy when they ask for it. Your whole deal here is based on a false understanding. (Same song, millionth verse).

One thing I want you never to do, Larry, and I mean it from my heart --- don't EVER tell a widow at her husband's funeral, "Well, I guess it was God's will."

Not only would I do that. I have done it. I have no other answer. Do you really prefer a universe that is out of control? What if God had willed it to be different? It would have been different. At my own MIL's funeral, we took great comfort in that, as we did when my wife miscarried our first child. If I didn't believe it was God's will, I would have walked away from Christianity.

What do you tell a widow at her husband's funeral? That God loved her husband but wasn't loving enough or powerful enough to stop it?

That is THE MOST PERVERSE thing I can think of and caused my MIL to never set foot in a Baptist church again!!

No, that's not what caused your mother not to set foot in a Baptist church again.

And that is just saying that "all is fate!"

No, it's not. God's will is purposeful, working for his glory. Fate is not.

That is only because you reject foreknowledge, Larry.

ALL of time was displayed out before Him, second by second, before it ever existed! See, this is why you have a "god of fate." You can't see this one truth. To you, God is not omniscient but is "blind" to time in eternity past and only "programs" time as He wants it to transpire.

No, I accept foreknowledge. I don't know where you got the idea that I reject it. I think that is just more of you making stuff up.

How do we OFTEN see Him "change His mind?" He REPENTS of that punishment He thought to administer to Lot, to Nineveh, to Hezekiah. What do YOU call that?? Will you for once admit that God said He truly repented Himself of these?? When?? When He foresaw the reaction of His creatures!

I think you need some more study. He "changed his mind" because the circumtances changed. Wayne Grudem has a good short section on this in his Systematic Theology. Pull it off the shelf and read it. I konw you must have a copy because no one would be so dogmatic about this topic without having exposed themselves to te topic.

Larry, if you pray will God answer? You have never answered me that. Or will FATE be your only consolation?

Yes, God will answer. He may not answer as I would like, but he will answer.

Did I say something about bowing out of this absurd discussion??? Oh why don't I listen to myself.

 

[Amy.G]

Pastor Larry:

No, they sin willfully. They are not forced to. No one is holding a gun to their head. They act on their wills.

Except when it comes to seeking God. They have no free will in that regard. :laugh:
I guess once you're elected and regenerated (with no will of your own involved), then God gives you a gift of free will. Now you have choices. Before salvation, you sinned because you could do nothing else, it wasn't a choice. Now, you sin because you're "acting on your will". Now, you sin because you choose to.

Why not keep us in that "no free will" state after savation, then we would not have the choice to sin?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Except when it comes to seeking God. They have no free will in that regard.

But they do. They are free to seek God if they wish to.

This is where "free" and "bound" get a tricky. Free will means that they are free to do whatever they want to do. Their wills are bound by their sinful nature. Therefore, they sin because they want to.

Why not keep us in that "no free will" state after savation, then we would not have the choice to sin?

I think this fundamentally misunderstands the point. The person before salvation is not incapable of doing something other than sin. They can do good things, acts of civil good or personal kindness. They can tell the truth and be moral citizens. But that is not righteousness. They do not seek God and are morally unable to please him. After salvation, the same thing is true. They are able to sin, even what we consider gross sins.

So I think the issue of "free vs. bound" is a little bit more nuanced than some are making it here. It does not deal with a person's ability to choose moral good as a civic issue, but rather the nature of a person's relationship with God.

 

[npetreley]

I guess once you're elected and regenerated (with no will of your own involved), then God gives you a gift of free will.

Actually, this is pretty much the Arminian position. According to Arminius, man is totally depraved and completely unwilling and unable to choose Christ or even move in that direction. Preventing/prevenient grace (rather than regeneration) restores man's condition enough to make a free-will choice. So substitute prevenient grace for regeneration in your statement, and you have classic Arminianism.

I know that's not what you believe, which is why I don't call the free-willers on here "Arminians". The free-willers here are actually semi-pelagians.

 

[David Lamb]

I know I said I was bowing out, but like Pastor Larry, I changed my mind

OK (1) and you didn't make that same comeback? It's important to keep in mind but I also assumed in the OP and since that you were saved.

Where have I "made the same comeback?" (I'm assuming that American English phrase means "replied in the same way"). Certainly in one message I wrote:

"The very same arguments that you bring against the Reformed doctrines could apply just as well to those doctrines you espouse, (such as freedom of the will, inate ability to choose Christ, and so on. Such doctrines have been formulated at different times in history, particularly by the followers of Arminius."​

and in a later one I wrote:

"But both "sides" on this issue have works written by their proponents. Just because people have written books about the doctrines of grace/ reformed doctrines, that doesn't automatically mean that those doctrines must be unbiblical. There have been plenty of books written from your standpoint, too, remember."​

But I did not write:

"Skypair's beliefs are based on human writings,"​

in the way that you have repeatedly said on this thread that I base my beliefs on the writings of Calvin.

(2) Apparently that is not what comes first for you. What's first in Calvinism is regeneration or, alternatively, "election," is it not? Belief (= faith) comes afterward. Do you not see that personal "fate" has more to do with salvation than personal belief under that paradigm?? (3) The "mustard tree" a paradigm which I doubt you were aware of and is worth considering by way of warning. Get a grip -- it's applicable to every branch.[/b]

Yes, belief did come first as far as I was aware. In other words, I wasn't sitting around as an unsaved sinner thinking to myself, "Well, I am not going to take any notice of what my bible-bashing friends say. What is the point of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ if I am not one of the elect?" But having been saved, I noticed that the bible said things like: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God," (Romans 8.8) and "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him." (1 Corinthians 2.14). Does it please God when a sinner believes on His Son? Of course. So how was it possible for "in-the-flesh me" to please God by believing? Amongst other passages, I came across Ephesians 2.4-6, where Paul wrote the the Ephesian Christians:

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.​

Not "ill in trespasses and sins" but "dead". How could I have believed in Christ if I was spiritually dead? Only if Christ had first given me new life.

I must admit to not having heard of the "paradigm of the mustard tree", though I do know of the parable. Jesus said He told it to explain what the kingdom of heaven is like. I am not sure how you are applying it to the current thread, though.

I have not been shown how your God is not a god of fate, that's true. And for your part, all you can show me is a God that predestined everything before He foreknew it. That is what "fate" is. A God who takes no mind of what His creation does or doesn't do -- whose "plan" is unchangable at some point along its preparation -- is so sovereign that it is at least as if His creation had no life. Now compare that to the "foreknowledge" (of free will) AND "predestination" (of His plan) model I have been endorsing and see that God interacts with His creation just like the Bible says.

I have never once tried to show you "a God that predestined everything before He foreknew it." I don't even understand what you mean, for if He predestined something, He would foreknow it too. Neither have I said that I believe in a God "who takes no mind of what His creation does or doesn't do". The Flood is an example. God saw the evil of mankind, and destroyed all but eight people. Why save any? Genesis 6.8 says that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Free will and predestination are BOTH scriptural tenets. You apparently only see one. And I'm sure you won't worship a God that you can't see and don't know. skypair

If I apparently only see one, it is probably because I have not explained myself very clearly. Our wills are free, but they are bound to serve our master. Before we are saved, that master is Satan. Charles Wesley (definitely not a "Calvinist"), wrote of this in his hymn, "And can it be?" One verse says:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free;
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.​

Jesus talked about setting people free, in John 8.34-36:

34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.
36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."​

And in John 10.26, He does not say to some unbelievers who questioned Him: "You are not of my sheep because you do not believe." Rather, He says:

"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.​

Apparently the "motive" of not wanting to make this a learning, edifying, brotherly experience outweighs the excuse of not having time for us.

I assure you that I would never be so rude as to say, "I have no time for you." All I wrote was:

"I am "bowing out" of this thread because I don't have the time to continue with it."​

All I meant by that was that other responsibilties I have mean that I do not have the time to join, or continue on, all the threads on the Baptist Board. I am sorry you mistakenly understood me to mean something more personal.

 

[skypair]

And this goes to the heart of salvation. Becasue we are guilty by the imputation of Adam's sin, we can be righteous through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. If we become guilty through our own acts of sin, then we must become righteous through our own acts of righteousness. That is hte point of Romans 5.

I read something recently on this "imputation of sin" issue. Rom 4:8 and 5:13 1) "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." How could God NOT impute the sin of Adam to ALL men, Larry? 2) Furthermore, "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." So again, how is it that sin is not imputed to all men?

Know how? Because is it imputed in the same way as righteousness is imputed -- by an act of unbelief/transgression. I believe again it was Sproul that completely missed this but neither is imputed to man without an actual act -- something that. Rom 4:5 brings this out very clearly -- "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." Again remember, we are talking about belief, not "works," being the reason for the imputation of righteousness. Rom 4:11, 22-23 speak to this truth.

Therefore, sin is not imputed to anyone on account of Adam's sin.

No, they sin willfully. They are not forced to. No one is holding a gun to their head. They act on their wills.

I agree with Amy. That would not be a "free" will.

He responds to them in grace and mercy when they ask for it. Your whole deal here is based on a false understanding. (Same song, millionth verse).

Hmm. Getting pretty smokey in here. :laugh: "Grace" and "mercy," eh? So God didn't really miraculously extend Hezekiah's life? He didn't miraculously "break His own laws of nature" and stop the sun once in its tracks and run its course backwards another time obliging the prayers of His saints? I find it facinating that your God can do nothing more that an Indian totem pole when it is prayed to -- that is give "grace" and "mercy" (or should we say a "warm fuzzy?").

Not only would I do that. I have done it. I have no other answer. Do you really prefer a universe that is out of control?

No, nor does God. But "facts is facts," Bluto. Satan is often in control, especially when believers are caught in the wrath of God that comes on the children of disobedience. It happens too when a person "sins unto death." That is not God's will and we should pray for all except them (according to 1John 5:16). Do you believe there is sin unto death, Larry? Do you believe it is God's will for a person to commit it? Do you believe that some of those you said those words over died according to their own will rather than God's will?

What if God had willed it to be different? It would have been different.[/quoote] Whereas it is true that God could have intervened, that does not mean that the death was brought on by God's will. You know better!

See, this is your "fate" mantra at work. Your God is so sovereign that His will is always what happens be it death of a baby or damnation of a soul. This goes right along with this famous quote of yours

No, it's not. God's will is purposeful, working for his glory. Fate is not.

It denies fate by looking at the perpetrator and not at the victim. Even the Greek gods had sought their own glory. It still was called "fate" in the way it affected men! Of course, God is not the victim of fate, Larry.

Let's tell it like it is -- Calvinist man is a victim of predestination/fate. I don't know how you could have ever construed me to be saying that God was the victim of fate or that He or the Greek gods didn't have purposes for predestining men.

At my own MIL's funeral, we took great comfort in that, as we did when my wife miscarried our first child.

I know -- the "grace" and "mercy" thing, right? Yes, there is great comfort in knowing that God has our loved ones in heaven with Him and yes, He desires that in the end for all of His children. Maybe this is how you intended your response to be interpretted -- I don't know. But I can tell you that my MIL did not interpret that as what was meant and neither do I.

What do you tell a widow at her husband's funeral? That God loved her husband but wasn't loving enough or powerful enough to stop it?

Well, that at least they were with God now instead of suffering, for example. Or what I told a friend dying of cancer -- I told her and her husband that soon she would be getting her "white robe" and be comforted and be serving God in heaven. I tend to be positive and speak as if death is just a "graduation" of sorts -- that death's sting is very brief and then one moves on to eternal joy awaiting their glorified bodies.

No, that's not what caused your mother not to set foot in a Baptist church again.

Like you'd know. Oh yeah, I forgot -- it was God's will/her fate. She could have chosen no other, right? Am I catching on here? :laugh:

No, I accept foreknowledge. I don't know where you got the idea that I reject it. I think that is just more of you making stuff up.

Well, I thought you rejected it because you asked my how God could see time before it happened. Then I explained it to you, remember?

I think you need some more study. He "changed his mind" because the circumtances changed.

Thank you. That is a God of free will. Circumstances didn't just "change," hearts changed by the working of the Holy Spirit (in the case of Nineveh) by the operation of free will.

Yes, God will answer. He may not answer as I would like, but he will answer.

OK, that's a partial answer. Does he answer you or does He, for instance, open up a parking spot right next to the front door when you ask Him? Does He answer you and give you a cure for your heart ailment that the doctors couldn't cure (as He did me)? Or does He just say "peace, be still, Larry. I am in control?"

Did I say something about bowing out of this absurd discussion??? Oh why don't I listen to myself.

These are the issues of Christian life, Larry. You "signed up for this!" :BangHead: If you would just get this fate/sovereignty thing and "imputation" of sin and righteousness sorted out, you'd be a pretty good pastor!

skypair

 

[Rippon]

But , Mr. SP , if you could check your attitude and convoluted reasonings and return to a more biblical stance -- you'd be a pretty good poster !

 

[skypair]

"Skypair's beliefs are based on human writings,"[/INDENT]
in the way that you have repeatedly said [better: IMPLIED] on this thread that I base my beliefs on the writings of Calvin.

Else basically I don't know where your theology comes from.

Yes, belief did come first as far as I was aware. In other words, I wasn't sitting around as an unsaved sinner thinking to myself, "Well, I am not going to take any notice of what my bible-bashing friends say. What is the point of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ if I am not one of the elect?" But having been saved, I noticed that the bible said things like: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God," (Romans 8.8) and "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him." (1 Corinthians 2.14). Does it please God when a sinner believes on His Son? Of course. So how was it possible for "in-the-flesh me" to please God by believing? Amongst other passages, I came across Ephesians 2.4-6, where Paul wrote the the Ephesian Christians:

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.​

Not "ill in trespasses and sins" but "dead". How could I have believed in Christ if I was spiritually dead? Only if Christ had first given me new life.

There is the issue, isn't it. What did I say "spiritually dead" was? Soul dead AND brain dead. Calvin (and maybe you) have abused the meaning of "spiritually dead."

Both soul and spirit are spiritual, right? But which is really dead? "The soul that sinneth, it shall surely die," right? What about the spirit, David? The "spirit" is the mind, emotions, and will of a man -- the brain. Are all men who have sinned "brain dead." No. In fact, that is the "receptor" for the Holy Spirit and the Word.

And notice -- man's will is in the brain! Man can hear the word and, BELIEVING, please God unto salvation!! This notion that the brain has to be "switched on"/regenerated is silly. The truth is that IF we believe actively -- that is, repent and receive Christ -- our soul will be regenerated and we will be capable also of seeing the "hidden wisdom of God," 1Cor 2:6-7, meant ONLY for them who are "made perfect" in Christ!

David, this is glorious stuff and don't miss it. Yes, God is pleased by the lost person who believes!

I must admit to not having heard of the "paradigm of the mustard tree", though I do know of the parable. Jesus said He told it to explain what the kingdom of heaven is like. I am not sure how you are applying it to the current thread, though.

Mainly that it 1) applies to the church and 2) that the branches or denominations "lodge" certain "evil ones." We ought to be careful how we inform our faith.

All I meant by that was that other responsibilties I have mean that I do not have the time to join, or continue on, all the threads on the Baptist Board. I am sorry you mistakenly understood me to mean something more personal.

And I apparently mistakenly thought you were coming in on Larry's side. I hope the "spiritually dead" comments help and as to the mustard tree, God was displaying the age of grace in which we now live in His sermon on the 7 "ages" or "eras" of the revelation of God.

skypair

 

[russell55]

don't EVER tell a widow at her husband's funeral, "Well, I guess it was God's will." [/B]

I just can't pass this one up. I've been in the widow's situation, and the only thing that gives real hope is knowing that this is God's plan, that even in the death of a loved one, God is working his good purpose, making all things work together according to his good plan. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Job found comfort in that, and so do I.

I won't speculate as to why someone else wouldn't find comfort in that idea, but if you take away a pastor's ability to point those who are experiencing the loss of a loved one to God's good plan for their lives, you've taken away his ability point them to the whole grounds for their hope and trust in God.

 

[skypair]

I just can't pass this one up. I've been in the widow's situation, and the only thing that gives real hope is knowing that this is God's plan, that even in the death of a loved one, God is working his good purpose, making all things work together according to his good plan. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Job found comfort in that, and so do I.

I won't speculate as to why someone else wouldn't find comfort in that idea, but if you take away a pastor's ability to point those who are experiencing the loss of a loved one to God's good plan for their lives, you've taken away his ability point them to the whole grounds for their hope and trust in God.

Hey russ -- I hope you saw my response to Larry as well. More comforting than that God "planned" the husband's death is that the husband has passed through the veil, the "sting of death" (which is all it is), and is entered eternal bliss. More comforting, I would think, is that God still has plans for those left behind and a glad reunion one day at Christ's appearing.

IOW, I don't think we have to insinuate into the situation the highly debatable issue of whether God wanted that man to die at that particular time in order to comfort the grieving.

skypair

 

[skypair]

But , Mr. SP , if you could check your attitude and convoluted reasonings and return to a more biblical stance -- you'd be a pretty good poster !

I'm trying, rip. And not in the sense of "Yes, SK, VERY trying!"

I am, in fact, interested in knowing what part of my reasoning is "convoluted" so that I might be in unity with my brothers if the truly do have it right.

skypair

 

[russell55]

More comforting than that God "planned" the husband's death is that the husband has passed through the veil, the "sting of death" (which is all it is), and is entered eternal bliss. More comforting, I would think, is that God still has plans for those left behind and a glad reunion one day at Christ's appearing.

Knowing those things help, too, but the most comforting thing of all is knowing that his death and the timing of it had purpose, so it wasn't meaningless. He didn't die, leaving a young son to go through his teen years without a father for no good reason.

It's no coincidence that my husband's favorite passage while he was ill was Psalm 139. What comfort it gave him (and all of us) to know that his days were determined by God! That even in the trial of his illness and impending death, God was working all things together for good according to his plan.

IOW, I don't think we have to insinuate into the situation the highly debatable issue of whether God wanted that man to die at that particular time in order to comfort the grieving.

It isn't a highty debatable issue. It's given to us straight up all through scripture. God numbers our hairs. Does he not number our days? Not even a sparrow dies apart from God's will. Are we less important to him than sparrows? Speaking of the death of his children, Job says, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes way." And then there's David: "All the days God ordained for me were recorded in his scroll before one of them came into existence." Paul says that God works all things together for good, and God works all things after the counsel of his will.

This truth is given to us straight up throughout the scriptures as a comfort to us. It's given to us so we won't worry. It's given to us so we can be contented in our circumstances. If God told us this in order to comfort us and to get us through difficult times, then we should use this truth to comfort the grieving, and not feel hesitant to do so as if we somehow know better or have better judgment than God. In the long run, avoiding this wonderful truth when we give comfort is giving people less than all the help that God gives them in his word.

 

[David Lamb]

Else basically I don't know where your theology comes from.

I have tried (as have others far more eloquent than I) telling you on several occasions that my theology is based on the bible - granted, not the same understanding of bible as you seem to have, and certainly not a perfect understanding.

There is the issue, isn't it. What did I say "spiritually dead" was? Soul dead AND brain dead. Calvin (and maybe you) have abused the meaning of "spiritually dead."

Yes, you said that spiritually dead means "soul dead and brain dead," but does the bible support that view? Paul wrote his Ephesian letter to Christians whose brains (and bodies) had not been dead before they were converted. Yet he tells them that they had been dead in trespasses and sins.

Both soul and spirit are spiritual, right? But which is really dead? "The soul that sinneth, it shall surely die," right? What about the spirit, David? The "spirit" is the mind, emotions, and will of a man -- the brain. Are all men who have sinned "brain dead." No. In fact, that is the "receptor" for the Holy Spirit and the Word.

Once again, that is your understanding of Scripture. I respect it, but I cannot agree with it. I don't understand the bible to say that the spirit = the brain. If it were, I would expect some headline-making autopsy reports every time a saved person died in suspicious circumstances, for their brains would be with the Lord! I can imagine a conversation between Quincy and Sam:

"See here, Sam! The cranal cavity - there's nothing in it!"

"OK then, Quince, we'll have to look somewhere else for cause of death."

"No, Sam, you don't get it! When I said there's nothing in it, I didn't just mean I could find nothing unusual there to explain the death - I meant there is NOTHING there; it's empty!"​

And notice -- man's will is in the brain! Man can hear the word and, BELIEVING, please God unto salvation!! This notion that the brain has to be "switched on"/regenerated is silly. The truth is that IF we believe actively -- that is, repent and receive Christ -- our soul will be regenerated and we will be capable also of seeing the "hidden wisdom of God," 1Cor 2:6-7, meant ONLY for them who are "made perfect" in Christ!

Who said anything about the brain having to be switched on? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Certainly, God must do something to enable the "natural man" to "receive the things of the Spirit of God," for 1 Corinthians 2.14 says the "natural man" cannot do that. The word translated "natural" includes the will. Indeed in Jude 1.18-19 it is translated as "sensual":

...mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.
19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.​

David, this is glorious stuff and don't miss it. Yes, God is pleased by the lost person who believes!

Yet the scripture says that those who are "in the flesh" cannot please God. I'll put those words in context, in Romans 8.6-9:

6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.​

So we cannot please God unless the Spirit of God/the Spirit of Christ dwells in us. God must come to us before we believe. Jesus said that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws him

Mainly that it 1) applies to the church and 2) that the branches or denominations "lodge" certain "evil ones." We ought to be careful how we inform our faith.

Can I just check that you are talking about this parable, in Matthew 13.31-32?

1 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,
32 "which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."​

If that is the one you mean, where does it say anything about denominations, or about evil ones lodging in the branches?

And I apparently mistakenly thought you were coming in on Larry's side. I hope the "spiritually dead" comments help and as to the mustard tree, God was displaying the age of grace in which we now live in His sermon on the 7 "ages" or "eras" of the revelation of God. skypair

As you final comment was placed just below my remarks about what I meant by bowing out of this thread for lack of time, are you saying that you thought my reasons for bowing out were the same as Larry's? If so, I don't know if you are right on that - he said he was bowing out because he felt the thread had "stooped to absurdity". If on the other hand "coming in on Larry's side" means "believing the same things Larry does", then, to judge from his postings - I have no other yardstick as I do not know him personally), he and I are probably "on the same side" theologically speaking.

 

[skypair]

Knowing those things help, too, but the most comforting thing of all is knowing that his death and the timing of it had purpose, so it wasn't meaningless. He didn't die, leaving a young son to go through his teen years without a father for no good reason.

It's no coincidence that my husband's favorite passage while he was ill was Psalm 139. What comfort it gave him (and all of us) to know that his days were determined by God! That even in the trial of his illness and impending death, God was working all things together for good according to his plan.


It isn't a highty debatable issue. It's given to us straight up all through scripture. God numbers our hairs. Does he not number our days? Not even a sparrow dies apart from God's will. Are we less important to him than sparrows? Speaking of the death of his children, Job says, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes way." And then there's David: "All the days God ordained for me were recorded in his scroll before one of them came into existence." Paul says that God works all things together for good, and God works all things after the counsel of his will.

This truth is given to us straight up throughout the scriptures as a comfort to us. It's given to us so we won't worry. It's given to us so we can be contented in our circumstances. If God told us this in order to comfort us and to get us through difficult times, then we should use this truth to comfort the grieving, and not feel hesitant to do so as if we somehow know better or have better judgment than God. In the long run, avoiding this wonderful truth when we give comfort is giving people less than all the help that God gives them in his word.

I'm sorry, russ. I took the setting as the funeral home -- not the hospital bed. My MIL took it as very callous and speculative to comment on the dead that way -especially if one didn't come and visit the ailing husband when prayers might have helped the situation.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Yes, you said that spiritually dead means "soul dead and brain dead," but does the bible support that view? Paul wrote his Ephesian letter to Christians whose brains (and bodies) had not been dead before they were converted. Yet he tells them that they had been dead in trespasses and sins.

Perfectly! Just like when Adam fell, so it is with us. We die immediately in our souls to God (God dethroned - self enthroned). Our spirits, though, die progressively -- that is, our minds are turning toward Satan's lies who works to blind the minds of UNBELIEVERS. Even Calvinists call this "hardening." And, as you know, our bodies die eventually, often earlier than they should.

Once again, that is your understanding of Scripture. I respect it, but I cannot agree with it. I don't understand the bible to say that the spirit = the brain.

Cute parody, David. :laugh: It is not the brain per se. But we can't see what goes on in it, can we. Here's where I get my analogy of "spirit" to "mind" -- we believers have the "mind of Christ." 1Cor 2:16. How? By the indwelling of the Holy SPIRIT.

There's another source I think you will find interesting - Prov 8:22-36. In it Solomon describes the Spirit as God's wisdom. I really like vs 8:35-36 --- "For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." This latter is the same description as blasphemy of the Spirit, is it not?

Certainly, God must do something to enable the "natural man" to "receive the things of the Spirit of God," for 1 Corinthians 2.14 says the "natural man" cannot do that.

I have commented on this numerous times but perhaps you missed it. 1Cor 2:14 speaks of the "hidden wisdom of God," NOT about the gospel. If you read 1Cor 2:1-5, you will see that Paul came to the Corinthians preaching the simple, UNDERSTANDABLE gospel (which they understood and accepted) with fear and trembling. NOW he speaks to them as "perfect"/saved (2:6) and tells them that they alone (spiritual people) can understand what the world and even the prophets could not understand because they are all "natural" men.

Yet the scripture says that those who are "in the flesh" cannot please God. I'll put those words in context, in Romans 8.6-9:

That is true of both "natural" men and "spiritual." Both can be living "in the flesh," right?

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.​

So we cannot please God unless the Spirit of God/the Spirit of Christ dwells in us. God must come to us before we believe.

No. We obviously cannot live "in the Spirit" until we are saved but you are mixing verses on "natural man" with those regarding "living in the Spirit." Let me ask you -- do you ever live "in the flesh," ever "carnally minded," despite being saved? Paul preceded this discussion by saying that he still warred against the flesh and saw "another law" there. Do you?

Jesus said that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws him.

He also said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw ALL men to me."

Can I just check that you are talking about this parable, in Matthew 13.31-32?

1 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,
32 "which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."​

If that is the one you mean, where does it say anything about denominations, or about evil ones lodging in the branches?

It is my understanding of the parable, of course. The first thing that catches our attention is the so small a seed grows into a huge tree with branches just like the church grew huge with different denoms, right? One "seed," one "tree," many "branches." We saw in 13:19 that the "bird" is the "wicked one." Here there are many lodging, making their homes in the tree.

If on the other hand "coming in on Larry's side" means "believing the same things Larry does", then, to judge from his postings - he and I are probably "on the same side" theologically speaking.

Well, that's OK. I try to taylor my responses as if you both were believers for a starting point thus assuming that we are starting at the same God.

The only thing is, between this thread and another on the "self-centered" God, it appears to me that the God of Calvin is actually modelled after or very similar to the Greek gods -- 1) very vain, 2) "playing games" on their faithful.

3) For the faithful's part, they expected nothing but to have this understanding of what God is doing in their lives, "all is fate" (predestined by the gods)

4) There were a few "demi-gods" who, seeming to me to be like the "elect," were born of the gods on the earth to be leaders of men (Hercules, for example) 5) and this obviously being no choice of his/her own.

Do these compare favorably for you? I hope you are not offended. It really took me aback it became clearer to me. I have been trying to go back through Calvin and Augustine to find some Greek influence that would account for this. Nothing yet except a few comments by Hunt about Plato.

The other thread stresses that God does all for His glory (which many of us see a pure vanity). Basically Calvin says God creates most men to condemnation -- basically born for the "sport" of the gods and then thrown away. Calvinist believers basically believe that all of life is predetermined (both good and bad) and thus "fate." To me, this imagery is getting clearer the more I listen to them.

skypair