more indept study of Armenian and Calvinist

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Redwood ,,,,,

     Joline answered your question but still I didn't want you t o think I was ignoring you,,,,,,,,,,,,I was responding to what Joline commented on & she mentioned that the Scriptures were not available to laity for many years,etc,,,,,,,that's all & it was Off-Topic so neither of us elaborated,perhaps sometime in another Thread

    I too,address people by name ,,,,that specific post happened to be one of the rare occasions when I used no salutation whatsoever

You're doing fine ,personally I was brought up to "address" properly when writing,I'm not very "hip" to the impersonal computer jive ,,,,,,,

                And welcome to Worthy!                           With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Guest]

Just now, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Redwood ,,,,,

     Joline answered your question but still I didn't want you t o think I was ignoring you,,,,,,,,,,,,I was responding to what Joline commented on & she mentioned that the Scriptures were not available to laity for many years,etc,,,,,,,that's all & it was Off-Topic so neither of us elaborated,perhaps sometime in another Thread

    I too,address people by name ,,,,that specific post happened to be one of the rare occasions when I used no salutation whatsoever

You're doing fine ,personally I was brought up to "address" properly when writing,I'm not very "hip" to the impersonal computer jive ,,,,,,,

                And welcome to Worthy!                           With love-in Christ,Kwik

No actually I was responding to the comments of others which inserted off topic comments to the tread. Which comments were inaccurate opinons, contrary to history. So now we have another thread being muddied up. I am not even Catholic, yet, if history does not support some ideas, hey were gonna go after you.

[RedwoodLady]

4 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Redwood ,,,,,

     Joline answered your question but still I didn't want you t o think I was ignoring you,,,,,,,,,,,,I was responding to what Joline commented on & she mentioned that the Scriptures were not available to laity for many years,etc,,,,,,,that's all & it was Off-Topic so neither of us elaborated,perhaps sometime in another Thread

    I too,address people by name ,,,,that specific post happened to be one of the rare occasions when I used no salutation whatsoever

You're doing fine ,personally I was brought up to "address" properly when writing,I'm not very "hip" to the impersonal computer jive ,,,,,,,

                And welcome to Worthy!                           With love-in Christ,Kwik

Thank you for the explanation. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Placing the choice upon Him when He has clearly, in His Sovereignty, put it upon man would be very unglorifying  in my understanding!

That would be true IF

He has clearly put the choice in man's hands. If it were that clear, there would not be differing opinions on this. I was in your camp (by that I mean of the free will / we choose to accept/obey/follow God, choose one, if that does not describe your position, I am sorry) from 1979 to 2013.

Then I started really studying this issue. Now, if see things in a different light, and so much so, that I do not say I changed my mind, merely. I used to be a pre-trib rapturist, then I studied and became a post-trib rapturist. On that, I changed my mind, but this is different.

I never called myself an Arminian, tended to call myself a Calminian - having a mixture of beliefs on these matters. What is different here from my eschatological shift is that I did not just change my mind, I repented. I literally have told God that I am sorry, for not believing His word, for being too lax in my studies, and for not having bothered to sort it out long ago. I won't go so far as to call those who do not believe as I do "heretics" as the Dutch reformers did, but I understand why they did that.

We have differing understandings, clearly, but I only came to my current understanding as a result of studying scripture, so clearly, for now at least, I cannot believe otherwise unless at some point, I cease to view scripture as divinely inspired and itinerant. Thanks for your comments and observations.

[Omegaman 3.0]

6 hours ago, hmbld said:

I know you said much, but my mind works mostly on one tree at at time, instead of the whole forest lol.  Taking this example, calls to my mind that God makes Himself known to all, and everyone has a responsibility to accept God or not, which means they have a very small part in the pardoning, where as in your example of two criminals, well it makes it sound like they are at most two pawns.  

As to your comments on God's foreknowledge is set in stone, nobody can change it, does not mean that God has given us no chance to accept Him, just because He already knows everything.  God's sovereignty, is His sovereignty in jeopardy if He chooses to let man accept or reject Him?  Mega, this is a puzzle that hurts my head, I am saying I don't know.  Six years ago when God spoke to me, I would have described it as I had no choice, I could not refuse Him.  Now, I say I recognized I wanted the light, I could choose the darkness, yet I wanted nothing to do with the darkness, and I desperately threw myself at His feet and told Him I can't do it myself, I needed Him to help me.  

I understand what you are saying hmbld, and how it sort of hurts your head to try to get some of these tensions to ease. For me, it is not difficult, because as I see it, God's sovereignty trumps everything. If you and I did this with people, like the governor and the prisoners, it might be a bit too game-like with them being pawns. The spread between the governor, an the criminals, is not large after all, they are all, merely men, they just have different occupations, and one has some amount of power over the others.

In the case of God and sinners, the spread is bigger. To put that spread into an illustration which falls short of expressing how big that spread is there, let's try this:

There is a doctor. He chooses to adopt a son. He loves his adopted son. His son becomes deathly ill. As you know, there are some people who value all life, and do not see humans as especially valuable, at least that is what they say. If this doctor had that philosophy, he could not save his adopted son's life, because in order to do so, he would have to give his son an anti-biotic, and in doing so would kill thousands of bacteria, that are in his son's body, and the bacteria are just doing, what they do to survive. This doctor chooses, to kill the bacteria, and spares the son that he has chosen to love.

Like most analogies, this breaks down, has weaknesses. However, God is farther above sinners, that that doctor is above bacteria. In the God / sinner case, God created the sinners, and they are His to do with as He pleases. In the doctor / bacteria case, that doctor does not own the bacteria, in fact, he is choosing to wipe out a creation of God! We would not criticize the doctor for that, not think him a game player with the lives of the bacteria, neither should we think that of a sovereign God exercising His Prerogatives.

You said:

"As to your comments on God's foreknowledge is set in stone, nobody can change it, does not mean that God has given us no chance to accept Him".

That is of course true, but I never said that his foreknowledge means that we are given no choice, however, it does mean that we WILL, make no other choice. That being the case, in a very practical sense, we do not have a choice, it was going to happen, that we will choose what we choose. It is only a problem, if we try to assert the idea that we have some sort of choice to alter what is going to happen. Since we cannot, doesn't that really just make our choice, a comforting illusion? Jump out of an airplane from 20,000 feet, with no parachute. On your way down, you can choose not to die if you like, but your choice is pretty impotent. You can choose, but you have no power to carry your choice out, you are subject to things set in motion, before you even knew there would be a choice to make.

We do not like God having sovereignty. We want to control our own destiny. So, we rebel against him, and fight him when we do not like His choices. Satan did it, Adam and Ever did it, you and I do it. As Christians, we have a new nature that wants to comply with God's will, but until we are glorified, after His return, we still have the remnants of that rebellious nature. What is easiest for us, to accept, is that we were in some degree of control, in our salvation, we are not willing to abandon our will, we have pride. Our pride says, I chose to be saved, or there was something about me, that God saw, and so He chose to save me, instead of acknowledging that we are totally undeserving of salvation, and that God did the whole thing in His sovereignty.

10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

You also spoke of your personal experience:

"Six years ago when God spoke to me, I would have described it as I had no choice, I could not refuse Him.  Now, I say I recognized I wanted the light, I could choose the darkness, yet I wanted nothing to do with the darkness, and I desperately threw myself at His feet and told Him I can't do it myself, I needed Him to help me. "

I think it was Augustine who said to the effect:

"I thought that I was seeking you, now I realize that it was you, seeking me to seek you"

I just take that a step further (and not on my own, but based in scripture):

"I thought I chose you, now I realize, that you chose me, to choose you"

[Omegaman 3.0]

6 hours ago, Joline said:

If we liken this to a courtroom before a Judge it is more fitting to the Gospel this scenario IMO.

It is a fine illustration, to be sure, but to illustrate a point you want to make, maybe not the point I was making. God is a judge, indeed, and for the Gospel, we can see that we are found guilty. The Judge though loves the criminal, His dedication demands that the fine must be paid? What to do? The judge, takes His robe off, and comes down from his judgement seat, and goes over to the clerk and says, this man cannot possibly pay they fine, so I will pay it for him, let the man go free.

In my governor / criminal scenario, I am not trying to illustrate the gospel, the gospel is a different story. What I was illustrating is, that the one how has the power to pardon can do so. God does not forgive everybody. It seems also, that not everybody receives the chance to even hear the gospel. So, not everyone His saved. People are saved, when God chooses to save SOME! He is not unfair to let others, get what they deserve. That is all my illustration was adressing.

In the courtroom scenario though, the flaw is that it seems to indicate, that people's ultimate destinies, are not decided until the judgement, when in fact, they we determined before they were born, not after they die. The courtroom judgement, just signs the paperwork, of what was already determined in eternity. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 hours ago, Ezra said:

The problem arises when Calvinists teach that the New Birth precedes saving faith, and is only for the so-called "elect".  That not only fails to give glory to God, but reverses what the Bible teaches.

No there is no problem at all there, because it is a logical conclusion from scripture, that the new birth does  precede saving faith. To not see that, I think you have to discount a large amount of scripture. I don't have time for that now, but I am sure that will come out, as the thread unfolds.

[angels4u]

8 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I think it robs God of glory, because salvation comes from Him totally by His grace. If it is dependent on us in some way, then we are taking credit for what He alone has done.

Fair? Well, you would have to define what that means. No, He is not always fair, at least not in the way humans often define fairness. Is it fair that I sin, and deserve death and separation from God for eternity, that Jesus, who is totally innocent pays for my sins through horrible death and suffering? That is certainly not fair.

Consider the following:

  14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

      19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Do you think that has bearing on this topic? Paul points out that there is no injustice with God. He also immediately after that points out that God has the right and even makes the choice, to create some people to demonstrate His power in the form  of wrath upon them, while showing mercy to others. He also hardens who He desires. Verse 23 there shows that his glory is demonstrated in that He prepares some beforehand, to receive His mercy.

I think it is helpful, to consider several concepts.

Justice. Getting what one deserves, and/or what one has earned. Sin (and we all do that) deserves punishment. The wages (wages are earned) of sin, is death.

Mercy. Being spared from justice, not getting what we do deserve.

Grace. Getting something good, that we do not deserve.

God gives those He chooses to forgive, grace, my extending mercy to them to exempt them from His justice.

For the wages of sin is death . . .  but the gift of God is eternal life. Rom 6:23

Now, we observe, that all have sinned. (Rom 6:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ) Therefore, all deserve death, it is what we have earned.

Two criminals rob a bank. They both get found guilty. The governor of the state, has the power to pardon them for their crimes. He chooses, for reasons which he does not have to justify, to pardon one of them, but not the other. Now in human reasoning, we would say, that is not fair, because we often think that fair, means equal treatment.

A parent sends an 8 year old child to bed, but lets the 10 year old stay up an extra hour. The 8 year old protests: "But that's not fair!" Here again, we equate fairness with equal treatment. The parent, on the other hand, has the authority to treat the two children differently for reasons of his/her own, and does not need to justify that decision.

In the criminal example I just gave, the criminal who was not pardoned, cannot claim that his sentence was not just, after all, he is getting just what he deserves. So it is with sinners and God. It is not remarkable, that God does not save everyone, it is remarkable that He saves anyone.

I will not bring a charge of unfairness against God, though I realize that He does not treat everyone the same. It is not my place, to judge God by my standards, it is His place, to judge me by His standards, and His prerogative, to spare me if He chooses to do so. Sin is against God, so it falls to God to punish us, or to forgive us, it is His prerogative.

You also said: "He knows our choice already,because He is all knowing." I would not disagree with that, but I do not know what your point is about that. How do we know though, whether the reason He knows that, is because He will bring it to pass?

God indeed, knows what will happen. When He let's us know ahead of time, we call that a prophecy. We know that God's prophecies, or the things that will happen, indeed, will happen, just as He foresees. Let me give you something to ponder here.

Suppose, back in eternity, before the foundation of the world, God foresaw, that you  would come to faith in Him. Now let me ask, if He foresaw that, will it happen just as He foresaw? Of course it will. So, if way back then it was already known what would happen, and that it absolutely would come to pass . . .  could you have chosen to make it otherwise? Can you undo God's foreknowledge? If not, then in what way can you possibly claim to have had free will, it was already set is stone, before you will ever came into existence, eh?

17

 

I have to disagree with you here and believe strongly in a free will.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

It is a fine illustration, to be sure, but to illustrate a point you want to make, maybe not the point I was making. God is a judge, indeed, and for the Gospel, we can see that we are found guilty. The Judge though loves the criminal, His dedication demands that the fine must be paid? What to do? The judge, takes His robe off, and comes down from his judgement seat, and goes over to the clerk and says, this man cannot possibly pay they fine, so I will pay it for him, let the man go free.

In my governor / criminal scenario, I am not trying to illustrate the gospel, the gospel is a different story. What I was illustrating is, that the one how has the power to pardon can do so. God does not forgive everybody. It seems also, that not everybody receives the chance to even hear the gospel. So, not everyone His saved. People are saved, when God chooses to save SOME! He is not unfair to let others, get what they deserve. That is all my illustration was adressing.

In the courtroom scenario though, the flaw is that it seems to indicate, that people's ultimate destinies, are not decided until the judgement, when in fact, they we determined before they were born, not after they die. The courtroom judgement, just signs the paperwork, of what was already determined in eternity. 

I can appreciate what you are saying. But if the criminal ignores their own guilt, or rejects the standards by which they are judged guilty, no fine can be applied correct?

That is what I was getting at. , concerning payment. And yes I agree with you as well on that point. I did not intend that to be left out, but I did. 

Thank you O man

[Ezra]

8 hours ago, Joline said:

The protestant reformers were seen as men which were inspired and God sent.

No Protestant would think for a minute that the Reformers were "inspired".  That would be applicable only to the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles.  God did raise up these men to bring back the authority of Scripture, and the true Gospel, which the RCC had undermined for almost a thousand years.

BTW, while  have been discussing Calvin (a lawyer by training) we need to keep in mind that The Westminster Confession of Faith is the authoritative statement of English-speaking Reformed Protestants, and essentially presents the same ideas as TULIP.