Just reading through the chapter, the author of Hebrews in the next verse tied that comment about “the foundation of the world” to Gods creation of the earth, so, so far as I’m seeing, the comment isn’t about enmity or a decree to hate unbelievers before the creation event, rather it’s an argument by the author about A. whether or not the wicked are still able to enter into that rest made at the end of earths creation,
and B. The Christians making their calling and election sure by comparing our lives to the lives of the disobedience (being run on arguments they’re both pretty long.)
About argument A the author of Hebrews writes about the idea of days and setting a day and the Sabbath once more, comparing today to the Sabbath day: “God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
So it’s not a condemnation passage or an argument against the hope of a sabbath of rest for the workers of unrighteousness, if it were more along the Calvinistic train of thought there’d be no need to use the creation even or the sabbath day as point in time (rather he’d be angry from before the foundation of world and refusing the sabbath long before creation,) rather it’s an appeal to be reconciled and saved today, saved from the sin of “disobedience.”
That disobedience language leads into argument B about you and I not following in the disobedient example we have been set (which is less relevant to your question but also uses the sabbath rest day language too.)
There the author uses language to do with Joshua, so his entering into the holy land by Jericho, finding rest from their 40 years of wandering in the desert, adding that although Joshua gained the land he wasn’t really giving the Sabbath that we read about here in Hebrews (if he were bringing in the Sabbath God wouldn’t have made the “today” quote via king David.)
“For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.“
That’s the impression I get just by taking a glance at the chapter, without going into the non Calvinist scholars. If I were short on time or patience I’d simply reply “it’s a run on argument and verse theology is bad, mkay.”
Well, Romans 4:17 has surrounding verses that remind me of a theme, a theme that argues you can’t stop God, He calls things which aren’t as though they were because He can do the thing He’s talking about.
I know what Dr. Craig concludes because of his Defenders classes, still there’s no point in spoiling that here.
I suppose that single verse just carries more theology than the words alone can handle. God knows we’re very ingenious little creatures, inventing a volumes worth of theology and commentary on a lone verse or even single words.
Think how many books we’ve already composed on the subject of agape love, just the word can be filled up by millions of incredible illustrations and possibilities that we can cram into that concept (from suitable things to horrible queer erotic theology.) There’s no end to the ingenuity of man.
About the wacko idea?
“Without weakening in his faith, he [Abraham] faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.”God calls things which aren’t, namely the promised child, as though they were, and if He wants to bring about a miracle birth that’s something we can’t prevent. I used to tie Romans 4:17 into Isaiah 9:6 because there it’s present tense too...
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.So although Isaiah’s ministry was some time before Jesus God speaks things which aren’t as though they are, the prophecy carries a double meaning, and as a result the atheist I’m in conversation with just stands there in awe unable to refute my unfalsifiable style of reading the text.
This answer on God and time probably won’t be as biblical as you’d like, Rick. Still, it could interest you nonetheless...
The notion of how God relates to time is speculative (really speculative,) but I’ve heard from his defenders call that Dr. William Lane Craig took several years out of his studies to review the relevant material. He shared the result in a book titled Time and Eternity: Exploring Gods relationship to time.
He explored both the A and the B theory of time, from memory I believe the A theory means that time is in a dynamic transition, so it’s much like how we experience time.
There’s moment 1 and moment 1 leads into moment 2 and it’s really happening as we experience it in our daily lives, like a train running along train tracks that are being dynamically built as we travel through time. Jesus (though timeless) enters into time and becomes part of this dynamic dance, experiencing time while simultaneously existing beyond it.
The B theory of time is more like time is static and that the entire scope of eternity is laid out before God. Like a snow globe depicting the 1980s, the times never really went away, but rather, for the people in 1982 it’s still 1982 today, and for yourself in 2010 it’s still 2010 today. Gods above the entire timeline and in charge over the flow as a timeless being.
Whether it’s A, B or some combination of the 2 I’m not sure, I’ve never read the book!
Maybe this will inspire someone to go out and pick up a copy of time and eternity themselves, then they can tell us.
The problem with calling sovereign grace "calvinism" is that the 5 points that everyone is familiar with were not developed as a base point for reformed theology until after Calvin's death. You guys want to hold people to every thing Calvin said as though it's the gospel for us, which it is not nor has ever been. It took 100 years for the meat and potatoes of reformed doctrine to be stated in a clear and definite way. Luther believed in what we now know as Calvinism but he would have recoiled at being called a Calvinist.
How would you sum it up in 100 words or less?
So reading all of this which I haven't, but some. We can say that Calvinists beliefs risk their very salvation? So far what I see you all saying is that their beliefs in predestination dooms them? I believe in predestination and it is biblical. have I missed the point of this discussion?
And where does the idea that
Calvinists limited love for mankind come from?
Briefly please as I get lost in the translation of paragraph upon paragraph.
Also, do you have any care as to how C's feel about your negatives in this thread. In my mind you should have more to say about Scientology then speculation of a beliefs love for their fellow man. I would grieve for my ultimate end if I believed all these posts. They are obviously very strong to see their beliefs being torn apart and can look past them. Has a C. posted here that they don't love their fellow man?
Just wondering. Hope the answers are in a nutshell.
My original response didn't make any sense, sorry. I am glad you are here to refute their claims. I often wonder how He feels about those that leave him. In the old testament it was pretty obvious his feelings for the lost. How are their posts concerning predestination and C come into play? Are they correct?
Thank you for speaking up, It is hard for some Calvinist to give their beliefs on these threads. I am thinking it is because you are a reformed Calvinist?
