Grace vs obedience

[xapis]

Don — I happen to be reading Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson at the moment. It would probably help answer a lot of your questions.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Don — I happen to be reading Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson at the moment. It would probably help answer a lot of your questions.

Amen! I read it earlier this year. Great reference!

 

[Boxmaker]

Well.... been out of town and off line for two weeks, and come back here only to find my dear friend Boxy up to his old game of pounding his head against the bricks again. The reality is that ol' Box is just adamantly determined to resist simple truth, and the following statement he made earlier is strongest evidence of why:

Interesting. Who are the bricks?

He steadfastly confines God to the same limitations under which he operates, and is incapable of conceiving anything other than an essential equivalance between the mind of God and his own. Which is why he insists that he is the only true font of interpretation of scripture for himself.... it is a subjective, pluralistic mindset that vaunts itself up at the expense of God's sovereignty.

Actually I was asking for an explanation of a contradiction in the Westminster confession. I offered a couple of analogies but I did not confine God to anything. Simply stated, I asked how the same God who predestined everybody and preordained all that comes to pass is not responsible for evil. If He is not, then He did not ordain everything. If He ordained everything then He is responsible. I am not asking you to answer this. I have received an answer from other posters that I can accept and respect as an honest answer.

So if scripture is not of private interpretation, then it must be that we are to share and record the interpretations of fellow saints, discern those that are biblically correct, and use them as aids in the study of the Word. All in the provision of our God and His Spirit.

Amen. (Which means that is what I do as well.)

 

[Boxmaker]

Yes, it is saying that, Don, and thereby implies that if the very human authors of the scriptures are not inspired by their own private interpretation, neither should the readers in their understanding of it. Box's statement "as interpreted by the Holy Spirit in your life" infers a private, subjective mode of understanding scripture that is not biblical, and is his rational for rejecting the recorded observations and exegesis of saints past in the forms of creeds and confessions.

From Box's point of view, we must all determine the meaning of scripture on our own with no input from any other source or it is invalid. This would exclude not only creeds and confessions, but also preaching, study helps, discussions between fellow believers, and any written or spoken form of exegesis other than the scriptures themselves. That is ludicrous. As was stated earlier, even "no creed but Christ" is a creed; just left unwritten out of a superstitious idea that to write down what we believe is somehow sacreligious.

Blessings,

Brad

Sorry, Brad but that is a miss-representation of what I have said and what I believe. We must determine the meaning of scripture by relying on God. We all are exposed to many sources of scripture interpretations. After we read them or discuss them we must test them against the Bible in quite prayer alone with God. The best Bible teachers are the ones that say don't trust what I am telling you, test it against scripture.

 

[Boxmaker]

That's great, Brad, I hadn't really thought of it like that exactly, but you explain yourself so well and I understand now. What are your thoughts when two Christians butt heads on one scripture and in fact have diametrically opposite interpretations of them? That is what sort of depresses me. I speak with baptismal regenerationists from my old fellowship and absolutely nothing dissuades them (maybe I'm just not gifted enough mentally to engage them, but I come at them with guns ablazing poring through salvation by grace through faith scriptures with them, and almost without exception the diametrically opposite interpretive lines are drawn).

Of course, one of the most obscure of all scriptures if where they find one of the best places to hang their hats: 1 Peter 3:21. I have read tons of interpretions of this verse by scholars on both sides, and my oh my, it is as diametrically opposite as you can get. It is really quite astonishing, I guess is what I'm saying, how such bifurcation can occur and last for generations.

Blessings to you,
Don

The line I emboldened is why I believe that religion serves Satan better than it serves God. Religions are deviceive and can raise far more doubts and question than they ever answer. By using religion, Satan is able to divides Jesus's church against itself. At it reduces the ability of believers to reach non-believers. Which method of baptism is best? Is baptism required? Is communion an open table or closed table? Is the earth old or young? Is the future open or settled? Should homosexuals be welcomed as lost or shunned as unsaveable? Every one of these issues is used to divide the church against itself.

We are all guilty of participating in this division to great or lessor degree.

 

[heymikey80]

Just as another point ...

You know people design car engines. And car engines often have pistons being pushed by the car, instead of pistons pushing the car. It's just a fact that the engine is organized with a piston firing to move the car, and other pistons moving in preparation to be fired on.

Is the engine designer responsible for the pistons having to be moved by the car?

I'd say yes. So the designer's responsible for the resistance to the engine's direction. Right? I'd say yes again.

But does the designer want the piston (in working order, mind you) to offer up resistance to the car moving? That is, is the designer intending the engine parts to resist the movement he's designing into the engine? Well there, I'd say no. The designer is actually doing the opposite.

The designer is actually accomplishing the right intent of the whole engine by including the resistance of the pistons. But he's made that resistance small enough to overpower. As a result the engine overcomes this resistance and moves the car along.

Responsibility is a tricky thing. If you're saying God is responsible for evil, you're implicitly saying two things -- not one. You're saying God is responsible for causing those evil events -- which He did indeed intend and order into the universe. There -- yes, God did. But you're further implicitly asserting God had the same evil intent as the event seems to indicate -- nothing is further from the truth than that.

So God has included the resistance to His Good in His design of this engine hurtling toward the Last Day. But He's made the resistance small enough to where He will cut it short, and pay back all injustices with justice in a single Day.

 

[da525382]

Don — I happen to be reading Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson at the moment. It would probably help answer a lot of your questions.

Thank you xapis!

 

[da525382]

The line I emboldened is why I believe that religion serves Satan better than it serves God. Religions are deviceive and can raise far more doubts and question than they ever answer. By using religion, Satan is able to divides Jesus's church against itself. At it reduces the ability of believers to reach non-believers. Which method of baptism is best? Is baptism required? Is communion an open table or closed table? Is the earth old or young? Is the future open or settled? Should homosexuals be welcomed as lost or shunned as unsaveable? Every one of these issues is used to divide the church against itself.

We are all guilty of participating in this division to great or lessor degree.

I think I am understanding where you are coming from Box and what you are saying.....but my problem is that I don't see a disagreement on scripture as equating to religion. Maybe I'm not being clear here. But certainly you can stand behind a curtain and I can stand behind a curtain, not knowing each other's names or backgrounds. Then when that scripture is flashed up on the wall, you say it means the exact opposite that I do. THEN, you can show your position with more scripture, and I can too......It's not religious dogma at all that I'm getting at here. It is more than that, perhaps I'm not brite enough to put my finger on it to explain it well enough......

Don

 

[bradfordl]

Simply stated, I asked how the same God who predestined everybody and preordained all that comes to pass is not responsible for evil.

Herein lies your error, dear Box. Your anthropomorphism of God requires the same of Him that is required of you. If you, as a being existing under the restraints of lineal time and a finite mind were to predestine and preordain a thing (there's an oxymoron hiding there, but I'm not confident you see it), you would be morally responsible for that particular event. But God, as has been explained to you ad nauseum in this and other threads here, is not a man existing under such limitations. His designs and purposes transcend time and encompass the entirety of the universe and history in a unified intent.

As Joseph said, what men intended for evil God intended for good; and that is the case for every act of evil that He has ordained will be committed throughout all time. The fact that your limited mind is incapable of comprehending that is immaterial. You do understand it in the context of Joseph's treatment by his brothers, but the concept that every single one of the multitudes of evil acts committed by men minute by minute in the world should be ordained by Him for good, while the men who commit them intend them for evil overwhelms you. So instead of humbly ascribing to God the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence so far above your own understanding that is capable of orchestrating such complexity, you instead take the opposite course and ascribe to Him limitations similar, if not equal, to your own. This is typical human arrogance, and a form of blasphemy.

Do you agree that you are an "open theist"?

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

I think I am understanding where you are coming from Box and what you are saying.....but my problem is that I don't see a disagreement on scripture as equating to religion. Maybe I'm not being clear here. But certainly you can stand behind a curtain and I can stand behind a curtain, not knowing each other's names or backgrounds. Then when that scripture is flashed up on the wall, you say it means the exact opposite that I do. THEN, you can show your position with more scripture, and I can too......It's not religious dogma at all that I'm getting at here. It is more than that, perhaps I'm not brite enough to put my finger on it to explain it well enough......

Don

Where is scripture does it say that only those who are baptized in the Church of Christ according to their rules will go to heaven? It doesn't and yet that is exactly what the Church of Christ teaches to the point that if you join their church from a different church, you must be baptized again.

Where is scripture does it teach that you must attend 1000 Catholic Masses to go to heave? Again, it doesn't but that is what the Catholics teach.

Where is scripture does it teach not to drink alcoholic beverages? It doesn't and yet most Baptists churches teach that drink is not allowed by the Bible.

Each religion has its dogma of the Dos and the Donts that will get you to heaven An every religion argues over what those Dos and Donts are.

So go behind your curtain and I'll go behind mine and we'll look at a verse and say what it means. Before you give your meaning you must top and reflect. Are you giving the answer that the Holy Spirit wants you to give or are you giving the answer your religion gives.

There is a reason I am no longer Catholic. The Bible and Catholic Tradition, Creeds, and Catechism have wondered to far from the Bible.

 

[Boxmaker]

Herein lies your error, dear Box. Your anthropomorphism of God requires the same of Him that is required of you. If you, as a being existing under the restraints of lineal time and a finite mind were to predestine and preordain a thing (there's an oxymorn hiding there, but I'm not confident you see it), you would be morally responsible for that particular event. But God, as has been explained to you ad nauseum in this and other threads here, is not a man existing under such limitations. His designs and purposes transcend time and encompass the entirety of the universe and history in a unified intent.

As Joseph said, what men intended for evil God intended for good; and that is the case for every act of evil that He has ordained will be committed throughout all time. The fact that your limited mind is incapable of comprehending that is immaterial. You do understand it in the context of Joseph's treatment by his brothers, but the concept that every single one of the multitudes of evil acts committed by men minute by minute in the world should be ordained by Him for good, while the men who commit them intend them for evil overwhelms you. So instead of humbly ascribing to God the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence so far above your own understanding that is capable of orchestrating such complexity, you instead take the opposite course and ascribe to Him limitations similar, if not equal, to your own. This is typical human arrogance, and a form of blasphemy.

Do you agree that you are an "open theist"?

Brad

Trouble is, I have not anthropomorphized God. Your confession says God preordained whatsoever comes to pass. The only thing different in your above post says is that there is no evil act from God's point of view because has ordained everything such that it will ultimately result in His Glory. Your post implies that evil is just a concept valid only in our limited perspective in time.

Time and time you assert that men are morally responsible for their actions. I disagree because you are not responsible for that over which you have NO control.

Yes, I would probably be considered an open theist. I do not believe God has settled each of our fates in advance. I believe God has laid before the ability to make a meaningful decision regarding accepting or rejecting His free gift. We are not puppets controlled by the puppet makers whim. we are not scum of such little worth that we are beneath God notice. We were created by and we are loved by God. He works to redeem all men to Him. He allows us to make that choice. In so doing, we become responsible for our own actions and deeds.

I have studied scripture for a while though I am no theologian. I do not see the Calvinistic fatalism in scripture. I see hope for all men, not just the elect.

 

[bradfordl]

Your post implies that evil is just a concept valid only in our limited perspective in time.

No such implication. Only an erroneous extrapolation of your own.

Time and time you assert that men are morally responsible for their actions. I disagree because you are not responsible for that over which you have NO control.

Gen 50:19-20 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? (20) But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

His brothers thought evil, God meant it for good. Were the brothers responsible for their actions or not? By your reasoning they were not, because plainly this event was ordained by God. So was this an isolated event wherein men were not responsible for their sin, but in all (or most) others men are responsible because they acted in a manner that took God by surprise?

We've been thru all this, Box. Your reasoning is circular and contradictory, and I anticipate this discussion to be futile, but hey, hope springs eternal, right?

Yes, I would probably be considered an open theist. I do not believe God has settled each of our fates in advance. I believe God has laid before the ability to make a meaningful decision regarding accepting or rejecting His free gift. We are not puppets controlled by the puppet makers whim. we are not scum of such little worth that we are beneath God notice. We were created by and we are loved by God. He works to redeem all men to Him. He allows us to make that choice. In so doing, we become responsible for our own actions and deeds.

Sounds pretty, Box. However it is NOT Christianity, and is apparently a creation of your own mind. The Holy Spirit would not teach you something that contradicts the Word He wrote at any time for any reason, and the bulk of what you say here does contradict it. The reason I posted the question was to point out to those unfamiliar with you the perspective from which you speak, and you have obliged most candidly. Thank you.

 

[Boxmaker]

Sounds pretty, Box. However it is NOT Christianity, and is apparently a creation of your own mind. The Holy Spirit would not teach you something that contradicts the Word He wrote at any time for any reason, and the bulk of what you say here does contradict it. The reason I posted the question was to point out to those unfamiliar with you the perspective from which you speak, and you have obliged most candidly. Thank you.

You're right. He has not taught me anything that contradicts what Christ taught.

Do you ever notice one of the big differences between us? I have asked you questions about why you believe what you believe. I forced you to defend it, and you have. But in all of our conversations I have NEVER accused your or anybody who believes in Calvinism of not being Christian. Yet you have strongly suggested on several occasions that I am not Christian. Why is that? We both know Jesus as our savior. We both acknowledge that God created the world. We both know that without Jesus, there is no salvation. We both know that walking with Jesus is to live a life of service to those around us. We both know that God is omnipotent. Where we differ is on some of the details of HOW God does things. The Bible supports both open and settled views. So why is that those who do not march lock-stop with your interpretations are not Christians?

 

[bradfordl]

You're right. He has not taught me anything that contradicts what Christ taught.

A true statement. The problem is that you infer that He has. Open theism is nowhere supported in scripture. It falls far outside the pale of orthodoxy.

Do you ever notice one of the big differences between us? I have asked you questions about why you believe what you believe. I forced you to defend it, and you have. But in all of our conversations I have NEVER accused your or anybody who believes in Calvinism of not being Christian.

Well, Box, There're bigger differences than that between us, but I'd like to point out that I made no "accusation" as to your salvific condition, I simply posited that your statement did not describe Christianity. You can conclude what you wish, but please do not misrepresent my comments.

As for you accusing anyone of not being a Christian, that would be a difficult exercise for at least two reasons;
(1) That open theism can hold no theological position to be true or false since it is by definition a pluralistic paradigm, and
(2) It is evident from your statements that you are not yet aware by a far stretch what the scriptures tell us contitutes Christianity.

But then I long ago shook the dust off my sandals and left engaging with you, so we will now part ways again, my main intent was to warn others here as to the futility they may face. But again, we can always hope.

CU,

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

A true statement. The problem is that you infer that He has. Open theism is nowhere supported in scripture. It falls far outside the pale of orthodoxy.
Well, Box, There're bigger differences than that between us, but I'd like to point out that I made no "accusation" as to your salvific condition, I simply posited that your statement did not describe Christianity. You can conclude what you wish, but please do not misrepresent my comments.

As for you accusing anyone of not being a Christian, that would be a difficult exercise for at least two reasons;
(1) That open theism can hold no theological position to be true or false since it is by definition a pluralistic paradigm, and
(2) It is evident from your statements that you are not yet aware by a far stretch what the scriptures tell us contitutes Christianity.

But then I long ago shook the dust off my sandals and left engaging with you, so we will now part ways again, my main intent was to warn others here as to the futility they may face. But again, we can always hope.

CU,

Brad

Then I suggest you look again. An open view can and does hold to the truth and is not pluralistic by any means. Look at the 95 points I posted in Debate a Calvinist and see where we go from there.