- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The next name to purge: Martin Luther
Posted on 6/28/20 at 12:02 am to Quidam65
Posted on 6/28/20 at 12:02 am to Quidam65
quote:No desire to say no. Those who are born again and are given eyes to see and ears to hear cannot unsee and cannot unhear. They have their entire being remade and have no desire to to say no once God grants them the mercy of faith by His Spirit.
The "I" in TULIP, Irresistable Grace, teaches that whoever God chose, has no power to say no.
Do you see that as a bad thing?
quote:This is why it is important to have a systematic theology that takes into the account all of scripture.
Yet in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, saying he wanted to gather them like a mother hen, but they WOULD NOT.
So did Jesus misspeak in the Garden? Did the Bible authors misquote Him? Or are the Calvinists wrong?
In Ezekiel we read: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (18:23).
Historically it has been recognized that God has two "wills", His revealed will and His secret will. God's revealed will is that which He has revealed through the scriptures, including His laws and desires. God's secret will is in reference to His eternal decree. God loves His creatures that He made in His image and doesn't want to destroy any of them, yet He has decreed to do so anyway lest His justice be made void. God desires that all men repent, yet doesn't decree that all men do so lest He doesn't receive the glory that is due to Him. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they were chosen by the Father to be a holy people, yet they turned their back on Him time and time again. He loved them through covenant and yet they broke that covenant over and over again.
From a theological perspective, there is no conflict in God desiring both to redeem all people and choosing not to redeem all people.
1
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Like I said, the Church and the State were intertwined back then
This was not a rule. It was a choice. Many reformers sought to stray from this, and Geneva was not a church-state, until Calvin RETURNED to Geneva, and He along with his friends in the city council worked to MAKE Geneva a church-state.
quote:
This meant that the religious views were included in the civil law
Civil laws were separate from Church laws. The civil law did not recognize heresy as a criminal offense. That was the Church's decision.
quote:
This was a part of cultural religion as well as politics. You can disagree with it all you want but there isn't a mandate in scripture to separate faith from politics
This was not about separating faith from politics. it was about separating religion from civil law. The church, in this case, pretended to be separate from civil law while enforcing penalties under moral law that were NOT mandated in scripture. Also, "cultural religion" is not Christianity. This is what the Roman Catholics made it into. And it was part of what the reformers were trying to get away from. But some apparently felt that certain culture, or tradition, was acceptable. Which was a mistake.
quote:
The new covenant had nothing to do with actions by the government (the civil law of Israel)
Straw man argument. I didn't say the new covenant had anything to do with the actions of the government. The act of killing people for heresy was by the Church. And the church's obligation is to follow scripture. Scripture, in the new covenant, does not justify the killing of heretics, or give the church authority to make it's own law. This is not the purpose of the church. You state that the new covenant had only to do with Christ's atonement of sin. Obviously, that was the most important point. But it also means that we were no longer under the Old Testament law. As Paul said in Galatians 3:24-25: "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."
Now, it is not clear to me that killing heretics was EVER part of Old Testament law, necessarily. But there is a particular verse which Calvin used to justify the executions, that I am aware of, which was Leviticus 24:16.
"And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death."
So, we see that there was a precedent for this in the Old Testament, and Calvin, by way of Augustine, seemed to have misinterpreted Jesus' Great Banquet parable in Luke 14:16-24 about compelling people to come. These men interpreted this as "by any means necessary", including killing people to compel others to obey, essentially. However, it is clear throughout the New Testament, including the passage I quoted from Galatians, that this was no longer necessary, and it we see that Jesus teaches that we are to love our enemies.
Again, it was the Roman Catholic church who took law into their own hands and made it a tradition to burn heretics. And, remember, some of those "heretics" were Protestants. That was the slippery slope of allowing the Church to assume civil authority by way of moral law. It undermined Jesus' message of compassion in reaching out to the lost. Calvin was not alone in bringing this behavior over from the Catholic church, but he was a leading force behind it, and was very intolerant, in general, of ANYONE who disagreed with him.
Does his character, alone, nullify his doctrine? No, and that is not my point. This is in response to your earlier defense of his actions. However, it easily worth noting such poor character in a man who is claiming to "accurately" interpret conclusions that NO church father before Augustine had come to. There are about 80 early Church fathers, whose writings are known in existence, and not one of them interpreted scripture the way Augustine did. Only heretical pagan religions like the Manachaeans, Stoics and Gnostic's, ever interpreted a deterministic view of scripture.
You repeatedly state, as all Calvinists do, that you're just "following scripture" and "it's all throughout scripture". But that's just not true. I'm sure you believe you are following scripture and I'm not questioning whether you genuinely love the Lord. I'm not calling you a heretic. But scripture does not "say" that all things are predetermined. It only speaks of predestination in the context of God's divine foreknowledge. It does not say that God made our choices for us, or that He elected some to Heaven, and others to Hell. That is an interpretation. One that, again, no one made before Augustine. One of the Earliest church fathers was Clement of Rome. He was a contemporary of, and knew, both Peter and Paul, whom each personally knew Jesus, as you know. Clement wrote clearly in favor of free will.
What did Augustine or Calvin know that Clement did not? Did they personally know anyone who spoke directly to Jesus? No, they did not. But you believe Augustine and Calvin have the "correct" interpretation? That is quite presumptuous.
quote:
The Reformers weren't trying to get away from "tyranny" but error. They thought Rome had lost its way and they wanted to reform"the Church by examining the scriptures for themselves. That was one of the biggest rallying cries of the Reformation: sola scriptura. Rome did not allow the layperson to have access to the Bible and even the mass was performed in Latin, which most people didn't understand, so the people were ignorant of what the scriptures taught. The Reformation brought the very word of God back to the people
I am perfectly aware of the Reformation's stated purpose to return to scripture. I've already said as much in this thread, and that was certainly a worthy cause. I am not attacking the Reformation, as a whole, as I am also a protestant. It's some of the denominations that sprang up from it, which didn't make things much better, if at all, that I call into question. And, in the case of Calvin, his interpretations are based on Augustine's writings, which themselves were never previously supported, and his attitude toward dissension very much mirrored the attitudes of the Catholic church that the reformers fought to escape. That is the tyranny I'm speaking of, that they were trying to escape. But Calvin assumed to be the authority of scripture, and made himself the law, while claiming the Bible was his justification.
“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.” - John Calvin.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:16 pm to Quidam65
Has anyone ever wondered what the European Jews possibly did to make so many different people in so many nations despise them so much?
I honestly don't know what if anything they did to deserve such shunned hatred by so many people spanning hundreds if not thousands of years but something or many things must have taken place for it to be so?
Maybe this question deserves its own thread or maybe not but, there has to be something to it.
I honestly don't know what if anything they did to deserve such shunned hatred by so many people spanning hundreds if not thousands of years but something or many things must have taken place for it to be so?
Maybe this question deserves its own thread or maybe not but, there has to be something to it.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:17 pm to Quidam65
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:23 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
The reformation was about returning to scripture.
even though so many of luthers theses were dead wrong scripturally.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:25 pm to Parmen
quote:
Well every Protestant faith will need to close up shop then.
yup. all started with him and his theses. you have 30k denominations..... many because they cannot interpret scripture. they are not the authority on scripture and never have been. man made churches.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:22 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:
even though so many of luthers theses were dead wrong scripturally
The purpose of the reformation was the freedom to examine the scriptures as they were, and not as the Catholic Church taught. I can tell you are Catholic, so perhaps you are prepared to explain to me where the Bible teaches that Mary is a divine being who is to be worshiped.
I do not follow Luther or Calvin or any reformer. I have spoken out vehemently against some of what they taught. But the reformation allowed people to examine for themselves (unless you lived in Geneva, in which case, you better agree with Calvin).
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 11:34 pm
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:27 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Luther wrote a book in 1543 titled "The Jews and their Lies".
Oh shite, I better stay away from this thread before the ADL Admins here send me another warning.
Posted on 6/29/20 at 1:09 am to FooManChoo
quote:
No desire to say no. Those who are born again and are given eyes to see and ears to hear cannot unsee and cannot unhear. They have their entire being remade and have no desire to to say no once God grants them the mercy of faith by His Spirit.
Do you see that as a bad thing?
God gave everyone eyes to see and ears to hear. And He wills that all would use them to come to Him. Will is not a decree. In the same way that it is our will that our children do the right thing, but they do not always do what we want them to do, this also applies to God's will for us. It is a stated desire.
You attempt to bend the meaning of words, once again, by saying "it's not that we have no power to say no, it's that we have no desire to do so". A desire, or lack of desire that God DECREED and gave you no control of, renders you POWERLESS. You haven't changed the implications of a decree by changing the term from "powerless" to "no desire". That's like saying "Joe wasn't murdered, he just had no desire to prevent the premature taking of his life", all while Joe was unconscious from the drugs his premature life taker had given him beforehand. You haven't changed the meaning, you've just made the language sound more palatable.
And yes, that is a bad thing, because the counter to not being able to say "no" is that, according to this interpretation, many have no power (or desire, if you prefer) to say "yes".
quote:
This is why it is important to have a systematic theology that takes into the account all of scripture.
Very important, indeed. It's unfortunate that Calvinism is only based on the scriptures that seem to support their doctrine, without any context whatsoever.
quote:
In Ezekiel we read: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (18:23)
Scripture is filled with God's desire for people to turn from their sin and repent. That isn't consistent with the arbitrary, pick at random God that Calvinist theology implies.
quote:
Historically it has been recognized that God has two "wills", His revealed will and His secret will.
This history is not recognized before Augustine, once again. There is no basis for the "two wills" position. God certainly knows things that we don't know, but His will He has made very clear. It could not have been made any more clearly than when He sent His Son to die for our sins.
quote:
God's revealed will is that which He has revealed through the scriptures, including His laws and desires. God's secret will is in reference to His eternal decree
God's eternal decree? God certainly decreed what would happen to those who reject Him and those who choose Him. What He did not decree, is the number of people who would accept or reject Him. That assumption is inserted by deterministic teaching, and is not stated by scripture, nor recognized by even a SINGLE early church father before Augustine.
quote:
God loves His creatures that He made in His image and doesn't want to destroy any of them, yet He has decreed to do so anyway lest His justice be made void. God desires that all men repent, yet doesn't decree that all men do so lest He doesn't receive the glory that is due to Him. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they were chosen by the Father to be a holy people, yet they turned their back on Him time and time again. He loved them through covenant and yet they broke that covenant over and over again
How any of this can pass through your mind and not immediately scream to you that it is incoherent, is befuddling, and I say that with as much love as I can, because my desire is not to belittle you, but it saddens me that a Christian could believe such a lie.
First, it is absurd to say that God loves his Creation and doesn't want to kill them, but does so lest His justice be made void. On what evil standard of justice did you derive this idea? Justice is to have a specific and consistent standard of righteousness, and to judge according to the works of people in relation to that set standard. Because God's standard is perfection, because HE is perfect, we are not capable of living up to that standard. But because God loves us AND He is just, He sent His Son as the perfect, spotless Lamb to die for the sins of the world, so that God remains just in His judgement, and we are made righteous THROUGH Jesus. Again this demonstrated both God's love AND righteousness.
By the rationale you stated, God is both ORDAINING sin AND punishing people for the way He made them, while inconsistently and arbitrarily laying down His judgment, based on absolutely no standard. That is neither love nor justice. It's evil. God would have been perfectly justified if we had ALL gone to hell, because we all broke His law, and He did NOT predetermine that we do so. But if He had sent Jesus to die, only for some, based on no standard other than the luck of the draw, then this, again, would not be justice. Christ died for ALL, just as it is written. The fact that not all will come to Him has everything to do with the free choice to reject Christ that some will exercise.
And given that Jesus was and is the perfect sacrifice for all, IF every single person chose Jesus, and NO ONE went to hell, in what way would God lose glory? Jesus paid the price. so if all come to God, the they are all justified through Jesus. If God loves his people, why, then, would he willfully prevent anyone from coming to Him? The idea that God is glorified through death is absurd. God is glorified by His righteous judgment. That means that, yes, when people reject Him, He is glorified by His righteous wrath. but if God decrees and ordains their sin, they are not capable of accepting or rejecting Him, which makes God responsible for their sin. And to judge them for that which they are not responsible would be evil.
Why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem, if He is the one who decided that they would turn theirs backs on Him? God could just as easily decreed that they would obey Him.
Calvinists have made the fatal mistake of deciding, based on absolutely no scripture, that God's glory can only be achieved through destruction, as a demonstration of His power, rather than through His love. God's character is consistently shown to be one of love, and patience, allowing us MANY opportunities to repent. It CANNOT be said that God desires one thing, but does another, if He is predetermining everything. Why would the all powerful Master of all things be glorified in making Himself weep? If it were truly God's divine decree for some to be destroyed for His glory, then He can't possibly say He loves them, and should rejoice at their destruction. Do you see the incoherence?
quote:
From a theological perspective, there is no conflict in God desiring both to redeem all people and choosing not to redeem all people
Well, you said it, so it must be so. From both a theological AND practical perspective it is an outrageous conflict to say that God desires to redeem all but chooses not to. He's God. If He desires, He can make it happen. Why doesn't He? I know you'll claim that it's "for His glory", but that has no scriptural weight, and completely contradicts God's clearly revealed character, as I've demonstrated. The fact that God does not choose to redeem all, is because He gave us the free will to choose, and not all will choose Him.
This post was edited on 6/29/20 at 2:40 am
Posted on 6/29/20 at 2:03 pm to Metaloctopus
This will be lengthy.
Part 1.
Contrary to popular opinion, Calvin was actually in favor of a separation of Church and State. He did, however, utilize the laws of the state in regard to religion as were necessary or convenient. In the case of Servetus, Calvin knew that the state would have him condemned as a heretic (typically a religious designation), and he approved of the guilty verdict and execution by the council, even if it is alleged that he preferred a beheading to a slow burning. Being burned alive was the legal requirement, though, because it was a civil matter.
Calvin had a lot of influence over the Protestant distinctives of Geneva, especially in the civil laws, however he had no authority in himself to make laws. The work had started years before Calvin came to Geneva. Your representation of Calvin as the instigator for a novel church/state union is false.
The new covenant was not about the Church's role in government. It was about who the Church was and their relationship to God through Christ. There wasn't an abolition of the Church's role in civil matters because it wasn't something the new covenant was touching upon. We have to understand the role of the civil magistrate elsewhere, such as Romans 13.
The Bible doesn't actually give clear guidance for what types of civil government are "right". It merely gives principles for the roles of what the government is responsible at the bare minimum and the duty of Christians to submit to that authority. The Bible is silent on whether the state can choose to enforce religious laws or customs.
Part 1.
quote:It was the norm for the state to have a say in religious affairs, even if it was the civil magistrate executing judgement on behalf of the convictions brought by the church. In Geneva, the Grand Council decided to ban the allowance of Catholic mass before Calvin even showed up on the scene. Servetus was condemned to die by the council in Geneva.
This was not a rule. It was a choice. Many reformers sought to stray from this, and Geneva was not a church-state, until Calvin RETURNED to Geneva, and He along with his friends in the city council worked to MAKE Geneva a church-state.
Contrary to popular opinion, Calvin was actually in favor of a separation of Church and State. He did, however, utilize the laws of the state in regard to religion as were necessary or convenient. In the case of Servetus, Calvin knew that the state would have him condemned as a heretic (typically a religious designation), and he approved of the guilty verdict and execution by the council, even if it is alleged that he preferred a beheading to a slow burning. Being burned alive was the legal requirement, though, because it was a civil matter.
Calvin had a lot of influence over the Protestant distinctives of Geneva, especially in the civil laws, however he had no authority in himself to make laws. The work had started years before Calvin came to Geneva. Your representation of Calvin as the instigator for a novel church/state union is false.
quote:Look into the history of the Servetus affair. It was as much in the civil realm as it was the realm of the Church. The legal punishment for heresy was burning at the stake. I say again: the legal punishment for heresy was burning at the stake. You said as much but you seem to have downplayed the role the government played in the execution.
Civil laws were separate from Church laws. The civil law did not recognize heresy as a criminal offense. That was the Church's decision
quote:There was no mandate from scripture that all nations had to enact the civil laws of Israel in regards to blasphemy and heresy. That's why I said it was a cultural issue. Each nation or state could enact their own laws in accordance to what they wanted to tolerate, and heresy wasn't something they tolerated. The religious perspectives saturated public life, including the laws and governance.
This was not about separating faith from politics. it was about separating religion from civil law. The church, in this case, pretended to be separate from civil law while enforcing penalties under moral law that were NOT mandated in scripture.
quote:You misunderstood. I was saying that the influence of religion on politics and civil laws were part of the culture of the day. It was acceptable back then for people to fall down on one side or the other of the Protestant/Catholic schism and they wanted their laws to reflect that.
Also, "cultural religion" is not Christianity. This is what the Roman Catholics made it into. And it was part of what the reformers were trying to get away from. But some apparently felt that certain culture, or tradition, was acceptable. Which was a mistake.
quote:Under the civil law of the nation of Israel, the King was responsible for ensuring the kingdom was ruled justly and the priests and officers made judicial rulings as well as heads of households for family issues, town elders for city affairs, and the Kings and Priests had their roles in making judgements. It was a mixed bag because the ultimate authority came from God and He allowed various levels of courts and judgements to be passed based on the civil law He provided to the nation. The laws didn't come from the "Church", so to speak, but they came directly from God.
Straw man argument. I didn't say the new covenant had anything to do with the actions of the government. The act of killing people for heresy was by the Church. And the church's obligation is to follow scripture. Scripture, in the new covenant, does not justify the killing of heretics, or give the church authority to make it's own law. This is not the purpose of the church.
The new covenant was not about the Church's role in government. It was about who the Church was and their relationship to God through Christ. There wasn't an abolition of the Church's role in civil matters because it wasn't something the new covenant was touching upon. We have to understand the role of the civil magistrate elsewhere, such as Romans 13.
The Bible doesn't actually give clear guidance for what types of civil government are "right". It merely gives principles for the roles of what the government is responsible at the bare minimum and the duty of Christians to submit to that authority. The Bible is silent on whether the state can choose to enforce religious laws or customs.
This post was edited on 6/30/20 at 1:28 am
Posted on 6/29/20 at 2:05 pm to Metaloctopus
Part 2.
Paul, a few short verses earlier, provided an explanation of what the role of the state was: "an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" (v. 4). There is a fundamental role difference between the civil magistrate and the common civilian Christian. All are responsible for obedience to God's law and all are responsible for loving their neighbors (including their enemies), but the state is responsible for carrying out justice on the law-breaker, something that the lay-Christian is not entitled to do.
That sets the stage for what Calvin and what most Christians (Protestants and Roman Catholics) believed about the role of the government at that time: they were there to punish the wrongdoer. The issue is not whether or not the government can do so, but whether or not the "wrongdoer" applies to religious-based laws, as well. Since Calvin and others believed that religion was foundational for all of life, including civic life, there would inevitably be overlap with religion and the laws of the land. Heresy laws were common at that time, and not just in Geneva during Calvin's time. Whether hersey laws are OK with God is for Him to judge, but no where does He condemn the practice for the civil magistrate.
The new covenant wasn't intended to do away with civil laws with the ceremonial. The new covenant made the ceremonial laws obsolete because they pointed to Christ's sacrifice. One He gave His life, those old road signs weren't needed because we arrived at the destination.
I'm not personally a theonomist. I believe that the laws of ancient Israel are no longer applicable to Christians since Christ is the Lord of all nations and peoples. Individual nations, therefore, are under His Lordship and they are free to create their own laws so long as they ultimately honor Him and preserve justice for all of God's image-bearers. I don't believe there is a mandate to enact heresy laws or other purely religious laws but I don't think they are strictly forbidden, either, so long as they don't prevent Christians from obeying the Lord.
What I find more important is what the scriptures say. The church fathers are a great source for understanding the context of the Church in its infancy, but as a dutiful Protestant, I don't elevate their understanding to an equal footing with the scriptures. No matter what they believed, it must always be compared and contrasted with the scriptures.
quote:Your last sentence tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Christ meant when He said to love one's enemies. Jesus summarized "love" for God and man by obedience to the moral law as summarized by the 10 commandments. Paul echos this concept in Romans 13 (right after talking about submission to the civil magistrate) stating that love for your neighbor (including our enemies, which is characterized by the parable of the good Samaritan) is obedience to the law.
You state that the new covenant had only to do with Christ's atonement of sin. Obviously, that was the most important point. But it also means that we were no longer under the Old Testament law. As Paul said in Galatians 3:24-25: "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."
Now, it is not clear to me that killing heretics was EVER part of Old Testament law, necessarily. But there is a particular verse which Calvin used to justify the executions, that I am aware of, which was Leviticus 24:16.
"And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death."
So, we see that there was a precedent for this in the Old Testament, and Calvin, by way of Augustine, seemed to have misinterpreted Jesus' Great Banquet parable in Luke 14:16-24 about compelling people to come. These men interpreted this as "by any means necessary", including killing people to compel others to obey, essentially. However, it is clear throughout the New Testament, including the passage I quoted from Galatians, that this was no longer necessary, and it we see that Jesus teaches that we are to love our enemies.
Paul, a few short verses earlier, provided an explanation of what the role of the state was: "an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" (v. 4). There is a fundamental role difference between the civil magistrate and the common civilian Christian. All are responsible for obedience to God's law and all are responsible for loving their neighbors (including their enemies), but the state is responsible for carrying out justice on the law-breaker, something that the lay-Christian is not entitled to do.
That sets the stage for what Calvin and what most Christians (Protestants and Roman Catholics) believed about the role of the government at that time: they were there to punish the wrongdoer. The issue is not whether or not the government can do so, but whether or not the "wrongdoer" applies to religious-based laws, as well. Since Calvin and others believed that religion was foundational for all of life, including civic life, there would inevitably be overlap with religion and the laws of the land. Heresy laws were common at that time, and not just in Geneva during Calvin's time. Whether hersey laws are OK with God is for Him to judge, but no where does He condemn the practice for the civil magistrate.
The new covenant wasn't intended to do away with civil laws with the ceremonial. The new covenant made the ceremonial laws obsolete because they pointed to Christ's sacrifice. One He gave His life, those old road signs weren't needed because we arrived at the destination.
I'm not personally a theonomist. I believe that the laws of ancient Israel are no longer applicable to Christians since Christ is the Lord of all nations and peoples. Individual nations, therefore, are under His Lordship and they are free to create their own laws so long as they ultimately honor Him and preserve justice for all of God's image-bearers. I don't believe there is a mandate to enact heresy laws or other purely religious laws but I don't think they are strictly forbidden, either, so long as they don't prevent Christians from obeying the Lord.
quote:I disagree with the statement that Calvin was a leading force behind it. That's not true at all. The reason why I said that it was part of the cultural religion was because it was common throughout the culture at large to have the government involved to one degree or another in religious affairs or with religion-based laws. It was simply what they were used to. Calvin didn't start that and he wasn't some glorified leader of the persecution of others. Servetus was the only person executed due to heresy laws in Geneva during Calvin's time while thousands were killed by the Roman Catholics during the Spanish Inquisition during that same time. On top of that, even in the case of Servetus, the Geneva Grand Council petitioned neighboring Swiss cities to weigh in on the judgement and received agreement in the condemnation and execution of him.
Again, it was the Roman Catholic church who took law into their own hands and made it a tradition to burn heretics. And, remember, some of those "heretics" were Protestants. That was the slippery slope of allowing the Church to assume civil authority by way of moral law. It undermined Jesus' message of compassion in reaching out to the lost. Calvin was not alone in bringing this behavior over from the Catholic church, but he was a leading force behind it, and was very intolerant, in general, of ANYONE who disagreed with him.
quote:All the Servetus incident proves is that Calvin was a sinner. It doesn't say Calvin had poor character at all. Servetus was writing letters to Calvin regularly and Calvin actually tried to talk him out of his heresy in the beginning and finally ignored him once he saw that Servetus wasn't unrelenting. What I'm saying is that Calvin was a man of his time in some ways and the condemnation of Servetus is woefully misunderstood by Calvin's critics, such as yourself.
Does his character, alone, nullify his doctrine? No, and that is not my point. This is in response to your earlier defense of his actions. However, it easily worth noting such poor character in a man who is claiming to "accurately" interpret conclusions that NO church father before Augustine had come to.
quote:That's rather naive of you, if I may say so. There continual illumination of understanding where hardened doctrines were still being fleshed out. The early church fathers were dealing with all sorts of heresies that were attacks on the critical doctrines of the faith, namely the Trinity and the person of Christ. Augustine simply had more to say on the subject of predestination because he was dealing with the Pelagian controversy. The early church fathers simply didn't have to deal with that issue as much, and the writings we have of them don't rule out that they didn't have a similar view to Augustine, only that they had little to say on the subject in the first place or that the theological discussions weren't as of great importance given the context of other issues that were being dealt with.
There are about 80 early Church fathers, whose writings are known in existence, and not one of them interpreted scripture the way Augustine did. Only heretical pagan religions like the Manachaeans, Stoics and Gnostic's, ever interpreted a deterministic view of scripture.
What I find more important is what the scriptures say. The church fathers are a great source for understanding the context of the Church in its infancy, but as a dutiful Protestant, I don't elevate their understanding to an equal footing with the scriptures. No matter what they believed, it must always be compared and contrasted with the scriptures.
This post was edited on 6/30/20 at 1:31 am
Posted on 6/29/20 at 2:07 pm to Metaloctopus
Part 3 (Final)
That doesn’t even touch on the logical issue you’d have with foreknowledge of choice: that God has to learn something. If God is sovereign over all things, including election unto salvation, then God is in control of all things. If God is not in control over the actions of humans and has to learn what we humans will do, then God isn’t sovereign over at least one aspect of His creation. It puts humans in the driver’s seat ultimately.
The Bible does talk about election. It does talk about reprobation. It does talk about even people’s choices being ordained by God. It’s not simply an interpretation, it’s the only logically consistent position to take when looking at scripture as a whole.
Acts 4:27-29 is a prayer of the people that says that the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all predestined by God’s hand to take place. Not simply known, but orchestrated to accomplish God’s will.
Proverbs 21:1 says that the heart of the King is in God’s hands and that God turns it as He will.
Romans 9 in particular expresses the doctrine of election and reprobation. Paul provides the example of Pharaoh and explains how his purpose in life was to be destroyed by God for His own glory. Proverbs 16:4 is another example.
All things are in God’s control, including those things done by the will of man: Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 115:3; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:15-18; Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:11; John 15:16; Psalm 65:4.
There are just so many verses to pull from to show how God is sovereign over all things, from death and destruction to even the calamities and evil we witness. From the prophets that are called to the wicked kings. From sending His son to die to those who killed. All things are ordained by God and it is all throughout scripture. God is sovereign and it isn’t even a question.
It isn’t presumptuous to think that Clement, like all the church fathers, was a sinner with immature and developing theology. Even Augustine’s theology was developing and not settled in all aspects. They were all standing on the shoulders of those who came before them, attempting to rightly divide the scriptures and understand them appropriately. No one, not even Calvin, had everything right, nor does anyone have it all right today. What is most important is that which is critical to salvation, and those actual heresies are where the church fathers attempted to be most dogmatic.
quote:It is all throughout scripture. Where do you think Paul draws from to prove his point in Romans? The old testament. The scriptural justification goes well beyond those few references he makes.
You repeatedly state, as all Calvinists do, that you're just "following scripture" and "it's all throughout scripture". But that's just not true.
quote:What is the object of God’s foreknowledge in the verses that speak of it? God’s people, not their choices. “Knowledge” as referenced in the scriptures is more than just a mental awareness but a relationship. It’s commonly referenced in the old testament about people “knowing” each other sexually. It’s referring to a sexual relationship, as with Adam and Eve. God’s foreknowledge in verses like Roman 8:29 and Romans 11:2 speak of God’s foreknowledge of people, not their actions or choices. Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of knowing the person and consecrating them before they were born. The person, not their actions.
I'm sure you believe you are following scripture and I'm not questioning whether you genuinely love the Lord. I'm not calling you a heretic. But scripture does not "say" that all things are predetermined. It only speaks of predestination in the context of God's divine foreknowledge.
That doesn’t even touch on the logical issue you’d have with foreknowledge of choice: that God has to learn something. If God is sovereign over all things, including election unto salvation, then God is in control of all things. If God is not in control over the actions of humans and has to learn what we humans will do, then God isn’t sovereign over at least one aspect of His creation. It puts humans in the driver’s seat ultimately.
quote:The scriptures were clear on the matter long before Augustine was born.
It does not say that God made our choices for us, or that He elected some to Heaven, and others to Hell. That is an interpretation. One that, again, no one made before Augustine.
The Bible does talk about election. It does talk about reprobation. It does talk about even people’s choices being ordained by God. It’s not simply an interpretation, it’s the only logically consistent position to take when looking at scripture as a whole.
Acts 4:27-29 is a prayer of the people that says that the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all predestined by God’s hand to take place. Not simply known, but orchestrated to accomplish God’s will.
Proverbs 21:1 says that the heart of the King is in God’s hands and that God turns it as He will.
Romans 9 in particular expresses the doctrine of election and reprobation. Paul provides the example of Pharaoh and explains how his purpose in life was to be destroyed by God for His own glory. Proverbs 16:4 is another example.
All things are in God’s control, including those things done by the will of man: Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 115:3; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:15-18; Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:11; John 15:16; Psalm 65:4.
There are just so many verses to pull from to show how God is sovereign over all things, from death and destruction to even the calamities and evil we witness. From the prophets that are called to the wicked kings. From sending His son to die to those who killed. All things are ordained by God and it is all throughout scripture. God is sovereign and it isn’t even a question.
quote:Here is the fatal flaw in your thought: you are going to Clement, who knew Peter and Paul, yet refuse to go to Peter and Paul directly.
One of the Earliest church fathers was Clement of Rome. He was a contemporary of, and knew, both Peter and Paul, whom each personally knew Jesus, as you know. Clement wrote clearly in favor of free will. What did Augustine or Calvin know that Clement did not? Did they personally know anyone who spoke directly to Jesus? No, they did not. But you believe Augustine and Calvin have the "correct" interpretation? That is quite presumptuous.
It isn’t presumptuous to think that Clement, like all the church fathers, was a sinner with immature and developing theology. Even Augustine’s theology was developing and not settled in all aspects. They were all standing on the shoulders of those who came before them, attempting to rightly divide the scriptures and understand them appropriately. No one, not even Calvin, had everything right, nor does anyone have it all right today. What is most important is that which is critical to salvation, and those actual heresies are where the church fathers attempted to be most dogmatic.
quote:Whether Calvin was correct on heresy laws or not is still in question. Most tend to think that such laws are not justifiable. I, personally, am not a fan of them. However, Calvin wasn’t attempting to be his own Pope and master of the consciences of all others as the Bishop of Rome was doing. Even the heresy and blasphemy that Calvin was against in the case of Servetus was widely accepted as legitimate heresy and not simple disagreements over non-essentials of the Faith. Servetus denied the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. That removes him from the camp of “Christian”, and that’s what Calvin was preaching against.
I am perfectly aware of the Reformation's stated purpose to return to scripture. I've already said as much in this thread, and that was certainly a worthy cause. I am not attacking the Reformation, as a whole, as I am also a protestant. It's some of the denominations that sprang up from it, which didn't make things much better, if at all, that I call into question. And, in the case of Calvin, his interpretations are based on Augustine's writings, which themselves were never previously supported, and his attitude toward dissension very much mirrored the attitudes of the Catholic church that the reformers fought to escape. That is the tyranny I'm speaking of, that they were trying to escape. But Calvin assumed to be the authority of scripture, and made himself the law, while claiming the Bible was his justification.
“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.” - John Calvin.
Posted on 6/29/20 at 2:21 pm to Quidam65
They don’t care if someone doesn’t like Jews
Posted on 6/29/20 at 4:40 pm to Metaloctopus
Part 1.
"as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.'" -Rom. 11:8.
Jesus referred to the elect as His sheep.
"I told you [the unbelieving Jews], and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." -John 10:25-27
God is said to have created even the wicked for their day of destruction or trouble (Proverbs 16:4). And of course, Paul's logical conclusion referenced as a hypothetical question in response to his reasoning of election pointed out that God can (and does) make some people intended for honorable use and others for dishonorable use (Rom. 9:21) and gives Pharaoh as an example of such a "lump" that was used merely to be destroyed for God's glory (v. 17).
Matthew 7:21, Matthew 12:50, and 1 John 2:17 are examples where the "will" of God is used in the sense of His moral instruction, not simply His internal desires, so we must conclude that both exist simultaneously. We call the two types of wills the revealed will--that which God has commanded us to do--and the secret will--that which God has ordained, in spite of whether or not we obey His revealed will. God wills that all obey, yet He has ordained or decreed sin to exist to fulfill His purposes.
Our lack of desire and our lack of power stem from the same place: our depraved natures inherited from our ancestor, Adam.
People like yourself tend to boil this discussion down to predestination vs. free will, but that's an incorrect opposition. It's actually free will vs. total depravity. Do we have the ability to be good according to God's standard and do we have the ability to seek God through Jesus Christ apart from a work of the Spirit in us? The answer according to the scriptures is "no". Predestination is a part of the discussion but only because we must be saved by God's grace due to our fallen, sinful natures that will not and cannot choose the ultimate good apart from that grace.
God provided the promise of the seed (Christ) to Adam and Eve in the garden after they had just sinned. He saved humanity through Noah though all had been evil in their hearts continually. He plucked Abram out of a land of pagans to make a nation for Himself. He made His nation through a group of scoundrels like Jacob, who cheated his brother out of his birthright. He remained faithful to Israel after their constant rebellion and idolatry. He sent His son to die for those who despised Him.
The entire Bible, from cover to cover, is the story of God's mercy and grace on a people who turned their back on Him time and time again. The doctrines of grace as fleshed out by the system called "Calvinism" acknowledges that God is the one who remains faithful and He is the one who receives all the glory in our salvation from start to finish. It leaves no room for boasting and it is consistent with the entirety of the scriptures.
My point in quoting Ezekiel was to show the two wills of God: His desire vs. His decree.
quote:Not everyone:
God gave everyone eyes to see and ears to hear.
"as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.'" -Rom. 11:8.
quote:God loves all His creation and in that regard, has no delight in the destruction any, yet at the same time, He only "wills" (decrees) to save only some.
And He wills that all would use them to come to Him.
Jesus referred to the elect as His sheep.
"I told you [the unbelieving Jews], and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." -John 10:25-27
God is said to have created even the wicked for their day of destruction or trouble (Proverbs 16:4). And of course, Paul's logical conclusion referenced as a hypothetical question in response to his reasoning of election pointed out that God can (and does) make some people intended for honorable use and others for dishonorable use (Rom. 9:21) and gives Pharaoh as an example of such a "lump" that was used merely to be destroyed for God's glory (v. 17).
quote:There is the desire, and there is the decree or act. Did God desire the suffering of His son on the cross? Did He desire to abandon Him with His grace and pour out His wrath on Him as our substitute? Of course God did not. He loved His son. He did not will that His son should suffer, yet He willed that He should suffer for our sins. See the two ways the word is used? It was God's plan, or decree, to have Jesus delivered up to be crucified (Acts 2:23).
Will is not a decree. In the same way that it is our will that our children do the right thing, but they do not always do what we want them to do, this also applies to God's will for us. It is a stated desire.
Matthew 7:21, Matthew 12:50, and 1 John 2:17 are examples where the "will" of God is used in the sense of His moral instruction, not simply His internal desires, so we must conclude that both exist simultaneously. We call the two types of wills the revealed will--that which God has commanded us to do--and the secret will--that which God has ordained, in spite of whether or not we obey His revealed will. God wills that all obey, yet He has ordained or decreed sin to exist to fulfill His purposes.
quote:Not at all. The desire determines our actions. If we have no desire to obey, we won't obey. If we have no desire for Christ, we won't seek Him and trust in His atoning work. If our desires are for sin and rebellion, we won't be obedient and godly.
You attempt to bend the meaning of words, once again, by saying "it's not that we have no power to say no, it's that we have no desire to do so". A desire, or lack of desire that God DECREED and gave you no control of, renders you POWERLESS. You haven't changed the implications of a decree by changing the term from "powerless" to "no desire". That's like saying "Joe wasn't murdered, he just had no desire to prevent the premature taking of his life", all while Joe was unconscious from the drugs his premature life taker had given him beforehand. You haven't changed the meaning, you've just made the language sound more palatable.
Our lack of desire and our lack of power stem from the same place: our depraved natures inherited from our ancestor, Adam.
People like yourself tend to boil this discussion down to predestination vs. free will, but that's an incorrect opposition. It's actually free will vs. total depravity. Do we have the ability to be good according to God's standard and do we have the ability to seek God through Jesus Christ apart from a work of the Spirit in us? The answer according to the scriptures is "no". Predestination is a part of the discussion but only because we must be saved by God's grace due to our fallen, sinful natures that will not and cannot choose the ultimate good apart from that grace.
quote:God receiving the glory is not a bad thing. Obviously those who are predestined by God to be reprobate will have a bad outcome for themselves, but not an outcome that they don't deserve, as we all deserve the same fate. The "good" is that God is glorified in all aspects of our salvation and receives the glory from those who were saved through no merit of their own.
And yes, that is a bad thing, because the counter to not being able to say "no" is that, according to this interpretation, many have no power (or desire, if you prefer) to say "yes".
quote:That's not true at all. I'd argue that Reformed Christians are the only ones truly looking at the full context of scripture due to the covenantal nature of God's work in Christ. The covenant of grace is extended from Genesis to Revelation on sinners who don't deserve it.
Very important, indeed. It's unfortunate that Calvinism is only based on the scriptures that seem to support their doctrine, without any context whatsoever.
God provided the promise of the seed (Christ) to Adam and Eve in the garden after they had just sinned. He saved humanity through Noah though all had been evil in their hearts continually. He plucked Abram out of a land of pagans to make a nation for Himself. He made His nation through a group of scoundrels like Jacob, who cheated his brother out of his birthright. He remained faithful to Israel after their constant rebellion and idolatry. He sent His son to die for those who despised Him.
The entire Bible, from cover to cover, is the story of God's mercy and grace on a people who turned their back on Him time and time again. The doctrines of grace as fleshed out by the system called "Calvinism" acknowledges that God is the one who remains faithful and He is the one who receives all the glory in our salvation from start to finish. It leaves no room for boasting and it is consistent with the entirety of the scriptures.
quote:Speaking of straw men... Calvinism doesn't teach that God is arbitrary or that He picked who He would save at random. That assumes God would have known who He would create without regard to salvation and only then looked back and picked some to save. No, God had intent in who He would save in His plan of creation and redemption.
Scripture is filled with God's desire for people to turn from their sin and repent. That isn't consistent with the arbitrary, pick at random God that Calvinist theology implies.
My point in quoting Ezekiel was to show the two wills of God: His desire vs. His decree.
quote:I've already provided my argument for the two wills of God. Please reference the above.
This history is not recognized before Augustine, once again. There is no basis for the "two wills" position. God certainly knows things that we don't know, but His will He has made very clear. It could not have been made any more clearly than when He sent His Son to die for our sins.
This post was edited on 6/30/20 at 1:19 am
Posted on 6/29/20 at 4:41 pm to Metaloctopus
Part 2.
Regardless, there are many passages that disagree with you on who and how God chooses His elect.
Ephesians 1:4 says that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world so that we would be holy and blameless before Him. It doesn't say that God saw that we would be holy and blameless and therefore God chose us.
John 15:16 emphasizes that Jesus was not approached by His disciples, but that He chose them for bearing fruit.
In John 6:37, Jesus tells us that all whom God has given to Him (the elect) will come to Him and He will not cast out. The implication is that only those who come to Christ are given to Him. This is supported by John 10 where Jesus is talking about His sheep knowing Him and hearing His voice and those that do not believe cannot because they are not His sheep.
Acts 13:48 speaks of those who have been appointed to eternal life. Who are those appointed to eternal life? Everyone? Or just the elect; those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life (Rev. 21:27).
Ephesians 2:8 speaks of salvation by faith as a gift. The gift is faith, and the gift is not of ourselves but is from God. Who, then is given faith? Those whom God gives it to. Does everyone get this gift of faith? No, only God's elect.
Romans 8:29-30 talks about the "golden chain" of salvation. God foreknew people (not choices), and those people He predestined to be saved. Those elect were then predestined to be conformed to His son (through faith and obedience) by the calling and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Those who are regenerated and given faith to believe the promises of God through Christ, God justified by Christ's blood. Those who are justified, He will glorify in Heaven. The entire "chain" is the work of God.
Ephesians 1:11-12 says that God's elect are predestined according to our faith. Wait, no.. according to God's purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will (decree).
I could go on and on, but go ahead and do a quick word search for "elect" in an online bible. Election isn't in doubt. The reason for why some are elect is in doubt in this discussion. We are elect due to God's will and purpose.
We all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and no one does good, not one (Psalm 14:3). Our wickedness deserves God's wrath, and while God loves us as his image-bearers, His justice demands that we die due to our sin. Christ's death on the cross was necessary because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and without His death to pay what our sins deserve, we would die in our sins and receive God's just wrath. So yes, God loves us but not all receive the blessing and mercy of Christ's death. The question is why: is it because they had the ability to take it and chose not to, or is it because they were rebellious by their nature and needed to be born again by the Spirit (John 3:3), which is an act of God that He doesn't do for every single person?
And God's election is not arbitrary. He has a plan for every single person He elects and He has a purpose for everything that happens.
quote:The interesting thing about your interpretation of election is that it isn't God choosing us, it is us choosing God. God isn't "electing" people to salvation based on foreknowledge of their choice. In that scenario, God is paying people with salvation based on their choice. It's a wage that is earned in that scenario.
God's eternal decree? God certainly decreed what would happen to those who reject Him and those who choose Him. What He did not decree, is the number of people who would accept or reject Him. That assumption is inserted by deterministic teaching, and is not stated by scripture, nor recognized by even a SINGLE early church father before Augustine.
Regardless, there are many passages that disagree with you on who and how God chooses His elect.
Ephesians 1:4 says that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world so that we would be holy and blameless before Him. It doesn't say that God saw that we would be holy and blameless and therefore God chose us.
John 15:16 emphasizes that Jesus was not approached by His disciples, but that He chose them for bearing fruit.
In John 6:37, Jesus tells us that all whom God has given to Him (the elect) will come to Him and He will not cast out. The implication is that only those who come to Christ are given to Him. This is supported by John 10 where Jesus is talking about His sheep knowing Him and hearing His voice and those that do not believe cannot because they are not His sheep.
Acts 13:48 speaks of those who have been appointed to eternal life. Who are those appointed to eternal life? Everyone? Or just the elect; those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life (Rev. 21:27).
Ephesians 2:8 speaks of salvation by faith as a gift. The gift is faith, and the gift is not of ourselves but is from God. Who, then is given faith? Those whom God gives it to. Does everyone get this gift of faith? No, only God's elect.
Romans 8:29-30 talks about the "golden chain" of salvation. God foreknew people (not choices), and those people He predestined to be saved. Those elect were then predestined to be conformed to His son (through faith and obedience) by the calling and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Those who are regenerated and given faith to believe the promises of God through Christ, God justified by Christ's blood. Those who are justified, He will glorify in Heaven. The entire "chain" is the work of God.
Ephesians 1:11-12 says that God's elect are predestined according to our faith. Wait, no.. according to God's purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will (decree).
I could go on and on, but go ahead and do a quick word search for "elect" in an online bible. Election isn't in doubt. The reason for why some are elect is in doubt in this discussion. We are elect due to God's will and purpose.
quote:The standard God judges is His perfect righteousness. His holiness and our sinfulness are polar opposites from one another. It is the very reason Christ was sent to die for us, because we could not do anything to be made righteous in ourselves. We needed a mediator and propitiation for our sins to take away God's wrath because we couldn't do it ourselves. We needed a substitute that only God could provide.
First, it is absurd to say that God loves his Creation and doesn't want to kill them, but does so lest His justice be made void. On what evil standard of justice did you derive this idea? Justice is to have a specific and consistent standard of righteousness, and to judge according to the works of people in relation to that set standard. Because God's standard is perfection, because HE is perfect, we are not capable of living up to that standard. But because God loves us AND He is just, He sent His Son as the perfect, spotless Lamb to die for the sins of the world, so that God remains just in His judgement, and we are made righteous THROUGH Jesus. Again this demonstrated both God's love AND righteousness.
We all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and no one does good, not one (Psalm 14:3). Our wickedness deserves God's wrath, and while God loves us as his image-bearers, His justice demands that we die due to our sin. Christ's death on the cross was necessary because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and without His death to pay what our sins deserve, we would die in our sins and receive God's just wrath. So yes, God loves us but not all receive the blessing and mercy of Christ's death. The question is why: is it because they had the ability to take it and chose not to, or is it because they were rebellious by their nature and needed to be born again by the Spirit (John 3:3), which is an act of God that He doesn't do for every single person?
quote:God is not obligated to save every person. It's not unjust for the King to pardon one guilty prisoner and not another, for both deserve to die yet the King decides to show mercy to one. This is the picture Paul provides in Romans 9 in regards to Jacob and Esau. The emphasis is that neither had done anything good nor bad yet God chose one and not the other. If God simply looked down the corridors of time to see which one would choose Him, that was a perfect place to say so. Yet Jacob was the worse of the two in terms of revealed sin and God still chose him, in spite of his sin.
By the rationale you stated, God is both ORDAINING sin AND punishing people for the way He made them, while inconsistently and arbitrarily laying down His judgment, based on absolutely no standard. That is neither love nor justice. It's evil. God would have been perfectly justified if we had ALL gone to hell, because we all broke His law, and He did NOT predetermine that we do so. But if He had sent Jesus to die, only for some, based on no standard other than the luck of the draw, then this, again, would not be justice. Christ died for ALL, just as it is written. The fact that not all will come to Him has everything to do with the free choice to reject Christ that some will exercise.
And God's election is not arbitrary. He has a plan for every single person He elects and He has a purpose for everything that happens.
Posted on 6/29/20 at 4:42 pm to Metaloctopus
Part 3 (final).
What is interesting is that your line of questioning is exactly the line of questioning that occurs from a "Calvinist" interpretation of election, and it's exactly the line of questioning that Paul uses rhetorically to teach us this concept in Romans because he knew these would be the questions that would naturally arise from what he was teaching. In a way, your very questions prove that the Calvinist interpretation is correct.
Here is what Paul has to say in answer to your questions of fault and justice:
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? -Romans 9:14-24
In terms of the weeping, do you have children? Have you ever had to punish your children after much patience, hoping they would obey you but knowing that they have no desire for it? Have you had to punish them, knowing that you would cause those whom you love great pain and/or discomfort and unhappiness? Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they were God's chosen people. They were chosen in spite of their sins and rebellion. They were chosen in spite of their constant idolatry. They were chosen in spite of their backs being turned on their Father over and over again. Jesus, who knew of the covenant that was made with this people, wept because though they were given every blessing, they still hated their Father by rejecting His son. They were the fig tree that He cursed, because though they had the outward appearance of fruit, they were useless. It's why the Gentiles were grafted in to the tree by faith.
quote:God could certainly have chosen to save every person, yet we are told that He chose not to for His own glory. Those who are saved due to God's mercy can appreciate that mercy when they see someone else getting what they deserve. God's goodness is magnified by the backdrop of sin and His mercy is magnified by the backdrop of His justice poured out on the wicked.
And given that Jesus was and is the perfect sacrifice for all, IF every single person chose Jesus, and NO ONE went to hell, in what way would God lose glory? Jesus paid the price. so if all come to God, the they are all justified through Jesus. If God loves his people, why, then, would he willfully prevent anyone from coming to Him? The idea that God is glorified through death is absurd. God is glorified by His righteous judgment. That means that, yes, when people reject Him, He is glorified by His righteous wrath. but if God decrees and ordains their sin, they are not capable of accepting or rejecting Him, which makes God responsible for their sin. And to judge them for that which they are not responsible would be evil.
Why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem, if He is the one who decided that they would turn theirs backs on Him? God could just as easily decreed that they would obey Him.
What is interesting is that your line of questioning is exactly the line of questioning that occurs from a "Calvinist" interpretation of election, and it's exactly the line of questioning that Paul uses rhetorically to teach us this concept in Romans because he knew these would be the questions that would naturally arise from what he was teaching. In a way, your very questions prove that the Calvinist interpretation is correct.
Here is what Paul has to say in answer to your questions of fault and justice:
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? -Romans 9:14-24
quote:As I said, God's love is shown through His justice and mercy. His power is shown by overcoming sin and changing the hearts of His enemies to become His adopted sons through Christ.
Calvinists have made the fatal mistake of deciding, based on absolutely no scripture, that God's glory can only be achieved through destruction, as a demonstration of His power, rather than through His love. God's character is consistently shown to be one of love, and patience, allowing us MANY opportunities to repent. It CANNOT be said that God desires one thing, but does another, if He is predetermining everything. Why would the all powerful Master of all things be glorified in making Himself weep? If it were truly God's divine decree for some to be destroyed for His glory, then He can't possibly say He loves them, and should rejoice at their destruction. Do you see the incoherence?
In terms of the weeping, do you have children? Have you ever had to punish your children after much patience, hoping they would obey you but knowing that they have no desire for it? Have you had to punish them, knowing that you would cause those whom you love great pain and/or discomfort and unhappiness? Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they were God's chosen people. They were chosen in spite of their sins and rebellion. They were chosen in spite of their constant idolatry. They were chosen in spite of their backs being turned on their Father over and over again. Jesus, who knew of the covenant that was made with this people, wept because though they were given every blessing, they still hated their Father by rejecting His son. They were the fig tree that He cursed, because though they had the outward appearance of fruit, they were useless. It's why the Gentiles were grafted in to the tree by faith.
Posted on 6/29/20 at 4:49 pm to VanzettiVandal
quote:
Why across centuries and different countries with people who have had no interaction with one another do the same specific "tropes and canards" always appear against this group of people?
Probably because there is a level of truth to it like all stereotypes.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News